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 .
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 21-24 are currently pending and rejected.
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 23 and 24 are 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 23 and 24 recite, “through which product inside the sealed package may be poured.”
This limitation is not clear as to whether it is referring to the pourable food product that is recited in claims 1 and 22 as being within the sealed package, or some other product within the package. This rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to recite, “through which the pourable food product inside the sealed package may be poured.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Komeo (US 2643815).
Regarding claim 22, Komeo teaches a sealed package containing a pourable food product (see figure 1 and column 1, lines 1-7) and comprising a bottom portion (figure 1, item 18, 20), a top portion (figure 1, near item 30) and a main portion (figure 1, item 14) interposed between said bottom portion and said top portion and including a plurality of side wall portions (figure 1, item 14);
wherein said main portion is divided from said bottom portion and said top portion respectively by a bottom peripheral outline (figure 1, 4, 6, item 18) and a top peripheral outline (figure 1 and 5, item 30), wherein each of the bottom peripheral outline and the top peripheral outline extend transversally with respect to a longitudinal direction (see figure 1), along which the total height of the package is defined;
wherein each of said bottom peripheral outline and said top peripheral outline is formed by a plurality of contour edges joined to each other(bottom peripheral outline: see figure 8, item 16; top peripheral outline: see figure 8, item 26,28 that form one of the trapezoidal shaped quadrilaterals); wherein said bottom portion comprises a quadrilateral bottom panel delimited by said bottom peripheral outline, wherein said bottom peripheral outline is formed by a bottom front edge, a bottom rear edge and two bottom side edges of said package, said quadrilateral bottom panel extending orthogonal to said longitudinal direction (see figure 4 and 8 which shows a quadrilateral bottom panel having parallel front and rear edges and orthogonal side edges);
wherein said top portion comprises a quadrilateral top panel delimited by said top peripheral outline, wherein said top peripheral outline is formed by a top front edge, a top rear edge and two top side edges of said package, said quadrilateral top panel extending at a sloping angle transversally to said longitudinal direction (see figure 1 item 30, which shows a quadrilateral top panel that is sloped and transverse to the longitudinal direction);
and wherein an area of the quadrilateral bottom panel is different from an area of a projected top quadrilateral obtained by projecting, along said longitudinal direction, said quadrilateral top panel on a reference plane that is parallel to said quadrilateral bottom panel (see figure 1 and 8 where the area of the bottom panel is clearly different from the area of the top panel).
See annotated figure 1 of Komeo below:
PNG
media_image1.png
611
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1-3, 5-10, 12, 22, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohn (WO 2014118813) in view of Barbieri (US 20160325872) and Ishikawa (US 20040011688).
Regarding claim 1, Mohn teaches a sealed package containing a pourable food product (see page 1, lines 1-2, “liquids” “fluids” and line 13, “foodstuffs”) and comprising a bottom portion (figure 6, item 12), a top portion (figure 6, item 14) and a main portion (figure 6, item 16) interposed between said bottom portion and said top portion and including a plurality of side wall portions (figure 6, see the sidewalls 16);
wherein said main portion is divided from said bottom portion and said top portion respectively by a bottom peripheral outline (see figure 6, item 13 which shows a bottom peripheral outline) and a top peripheral outline (see figure 6, item 15, which shows a top peripheral outline), wherein each of the bottom peripheral outline and the top peripheral outline extend transversally with respect to a longitudinal direction (that is, as shown in figure 6, both the top and bottom outlines are of a quadrilateral configuration and can be construed as an endless configuration, and which extends transverse to a longitudinal direction shown by reference character 10a), along which the total height of the package is defined.
Mohn further discloses that each of said bottom peripheral outline and said top peripheral outline is formed by a plurality of contour edges joined to each other (that is, contour edges 15 are joined together, and contour edges 13 are joined together, which thus form the top and bottom peripheral outline, respectively).
Mohn further teaches wherein said bottom portion comprises a quadrilateral bottom panel delimited by said bottom peripheral outline, (see the bottom 13 which can be square; see also page 5, lines 11), wherein said bottom peripheral outline is formed by a bottom front edge, a bottom rear edge parallel to said bottom front edge and two bottom side edges of said package orthogonal to said bottom front edge and said bottom rear edge, said quadrilateral bottom panel extending orthogonal to said longitudinal direction (see figure 6 and the outline 13 and where the bottom portion is orthogonal to the longitudinal direction).
Mohn also discloses that the top and bottom peripheral outlines can be square or rectangular, (see page 5, lines 13, 17-18) and therefore teaches that the quadrilateral bottom panel has parallel front and rear edges and side edges orthogonal to the bottom front and rear edges.
Mohn further teaches that said top portion comprises a quadrilateral top panel (see figure 6, item 14 and 15, which can also be a square; see page 5, lines 13, 17-18) delimited by said top peripheral outline, wherein said top peripheral outline is formed by a top front edge parallel to said bottom front edge and said bottom rear edge, a top rear edge parallel to said top front edge and two top side edges of said package orthogonal to said top front edge and said top rear edge, because on page 5, lines 13-17, Mohn teaches that the top panel can be square or rectangular, therefore teaching parallel edges. Because Mohn teaches that both the top and bottom panels can be squares or rectangles, the top front edge and the bottom front and rear edges are straight lines and since the bottom front and rear edges are parallel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on figure 1, that the top front edge would also have been parallel to the bottom front and rear edges (see also figure 5 which shows the contour edges as being parallel). It is also noted that Mohn teaches on page 5, lines 1-2 that the pairs of edges 13, 15 of the bottom walls and top walls are parallel to each other. Mohn’s quadrilateral top panel also extends transversally to the longitudinal direction (see figure 6 which shows the top panel 14 orthogonal to the longitudinal direction 10a). See annotated figure 6 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
604
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein an area of the quadrilateral bottom panel is different from an area of a projected top quadrilateral obtained by projecting, along said longitudinal direction, said top panel on a reference plane that is parallel to said quadrilateral bottom panel, and wherein the reference plane contains at least one of the contour edges of said top peripheral outline,” by reciting that the top quadrilateral is obtained by “projecting” said top panel, this appears to mean that the top quadrilateral is not a physical structure of the package, but is merely a “projection” of the top panel.
Nonetheless, Mohn further teaches that an area of the bottom panel can be different from an area of a top quadrilateral because Mohn discloses on page 6, lines 7, that the top and bottom panels 12 and 14, may be identical in size. The recitation of “may” suggests that the top and bottom panels can have a difference in size, thus suggesting the area of the bottom panel being different from that of a top quadrilateral. It is further noted that on the last four lines of page 9, Mohn teaches that the bottom wall and the top wall can differ in size, thus suggesting a difference in area.
Figure 6 of Mohn has also been annotated as presented below:
PNG
media_image4.png
704
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 differs from Mohn in specifically reciting that said quadrilateral top panel is extending at a sloping angle transverse to said longitudinal direction. Claim 9 differs in specifically reciting wherein said quadrilateral top panel is slanted with respect to said bottom panel, said reference plane and said longitudinal direction.
Barbieri also teaches that a slanted quadrilateral top panel with respect to the bottom panel, a reference plane and the longitudinal direction (see the abstract, paragraph 93 has been advantageous for increasing the visual impression of the packages at point of sale (see paragraph 39, 220 and 221).
Ishikawa teaches a top panel that is slanted at an angle transverse to the longitudinal direction (see figure 7), where such a slanted angle can be advantageous for accommodating a larger dispensing cap (see paragraph 68).
To therefore modify Mohn and to provide the quadrilateral top panel extending at a sloping angle transversally to the longitudinal direction and as, as a being slanted with respect to the bottom panel, the reference plane and the longitudinal plane, as recited in claim 9, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of being able to more easily accommodate a larger dispensing cap and for increasing the visual impression of the packages at point of sale.
Regarding claim 2, Mohn teaches that the reference plane contains at least the top front edge of the plurality of contour edges of said top peripheral outline (see figure 6, item 14). That is, a reference plane superimposed on top panel 14 would have been parallel to the bottom panel 12 and would have contained a top front edge of the top peripheral outline.
Regarding claim 3, Mohn teaches on page 6, line 7 that the bottom and top walls may be identical in size, which thus suggests that the area of the top and bottom walls can differ.
While Mohn does not provide further specificity in this regard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that there would have been a limited number of options from which the top and bottom walls can differ in size: the top wall being larger in size than the bottom wall, and vice versa. Furthermore, as the claims do not provide specificity as to how much smaller in area the bottom wall must be compared to the area of the top quadrilateral, this reads on any difference in area, which would thus have been prima facie obvious in view of the teachings above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mohn teaches that said two bottom side edges have the same length as each other(see figure 5, and the bottom side edges positioned between 33) and said top side edges have the same length as each other (see figure 5 and the top portion where the side edges between 33 are of the same length); and wherein the length of said two bottom side edges is different from the length of said top side edges (as shown in figure 5, the top side edges are longer than the bottom side edges; see also page 5, lines 1-2 and page 6, lines 2-3 where the top and bottom walls have long and short edges that are parallel to each other; see annotated figure 5 below). As shown in figure 5 and regarding claim 6, the bottom side edges are different and smaller in length than the top side edges. See also annotated figure 5 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
920
975
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Mohn teaches that the bottom front edge and said bottom rear edge have the same length as each other and said top front edge and said top rear edge have the same length as each other; and wherein the length of said bottom front edge and said bottom rear edge is different from the length of said top front edge and said top rear edge and where the length of the bottom front and rear edge is greater than said length of said top front edge and said top rear edge. That is, as Mohn teaches that the top and bottom panels can be square and as the sidewalls are tapered and wider at the bottom, Mohn thus teaches that the bottom front and rear edge is larger in length than the top front and rear edges of the quadrilateral. See annotated figure 5 below:
PNG
media_image6.png
935
1028
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, as shown in figure 6, Mohn teaches that the quadrilateral top panel is parallel to the bottom panel and wherein said projected top quadrilateral coincides with said top panel.
Regarding claim 12, Mohn teaches that each of said plurality of side wall portions is delimited by two straight lateral edge zones (see figure 6).
Claim 22 incorporates the limitations of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the reasons already discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Ishikawa teaches that the top panel can have a pour opening through which product inside may be poured (see figure 7-8). It would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art that such a pour opening as a result of a pour spout would have made it easier to open and close the sealed package, and to accordingly modify Mohn to include a pour opening through which product inside may be poured would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for this same purpose. Barbieri also teaches that the top panel has a pour opening (see figure 8, item 45) which has been taught to be useful for opening and then pouring the contents (see paragraph 105).
To therefore modify Mohn to include a pour opening through produce inside may be poured would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making it easier to access the contents of the package.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Mohn (WO 2014118813) as the primary reference, and in further view of Siewert (US 2374458) and Nakamura (WO 2018181321). The definition of “projection” has also been relied on.
US 20200095012 has been relied on as the English equivalent translation of Nakamura (WO 2018181321).
Further regarding claim 3, it is noted that if it could have been construed that Mohn did not encompass the area of the bottom panel being smaller than the area of the top quadrilateral, then it is further noted that Siewert also teaches a paperboard carton that is leakproof, and holds pourable liquid contents that can be food products (see page 2, left column, line 36 to the right column, line 3 – i.e. holding water or other liquids). Siewert also shows that there is a quadrilateral top and bottom panel, and where the area of the top quadrilateral panel is greater than that of the bottom quadrilateral panel, in view of the longitudinal fold lines 1, 2, 30 and 31 flaring outwardly toward the top of the package (see figure 1). As shown in figure 5 and 6, such a container can also stably stand upright.
Ishikawa also teaches liquid food containers (see the abstract), where the top side edges have a length longer than that of the bottom edges (see figure 2) and where the bottom panel has a smaller area than the top quadrilateral, because the top quadrilateral can now more easily accommodate a larger sized spout (see paragraph 68; see also figure 3, item 4a1, which has a larger area than the bottom section 4a). See also the plain meaning of the term, “projection” which can mean reproducing onto another surface. See annotated figure 1 and 3 below:
PNG
media_image7.png
409
826
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
496
722
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Nakamura discloses a top quadrilateral that is at a sloping angle transverse to a longitudinal direction (see figure 1, item 11) and where an area of a projection of the top panel would have been greater than an area of the bottom panel (see figure 6, item 11 compared to item 19). See annotated figure 6 below:
PNG
media_image9.png
514
568
media_image9.png
Greyscale
To therefore modify Mohn and provide a larger area on a top quadrilateral surface compared to the bottom panel would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on conventional configurations for sealed containers holding pourable food products.
In view of Ishikawa, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of affixing a larger dispensing cap. Because Mohn already teaches and suggests that the top quadrilateral can have a larger size than the bottom quadrilateral, in view of Siewert’s teachings and in view of Ishikawa teaching a larger area for the top quadrilateral than the bottom quadrilateral, the combination is suggesting the area of the bottom quadrilateral panel is smaller than the area of the projected top quadrilateral.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Mohn (WO 2014118813) as the primary reference, and in further view of Barbieri (US 20120279182).
Claim 11 differs from Mohn in specifically reciting, wherein each of said plurality of side wall portions is delimited by two rounded lateral edge zones convex outward.
However, Barbieri teaches two rounded lateral edge zones that are convex outward (see figure 12, item V’W’ and item 20, which bow outward). Barbieri teaches that this can be advantageous for positioning a cap while also allowing adjacent arrangement of multiple packages together (See figure 12 and paragraph 236). Since the figure shows two opposing outwardly convex edge zones, teach of the four side wall portions would have been delimited by two rounded lateral edge zones that are convex.
To therefore modify Mohn and to provide each side wall portion to be delimited by two lateral edge zones that are convex outward would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing positioning of a cap while also allowing adjacent arrangement of a plurality of the packages.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Mohn (WO 2014118813) as the primary reference, and in further view of Michel (WO 9637411), Selz (US 1342770) and Komeo (US 2643815).
Regarding claim 21, it is noted that Mohn teaches on page 6, line 7 that the bottom and top walls may be identical in size, which thus suggests that the area of the top and bottom walls can differ.
While Mohn does not provide further specificity in this regard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that there would have been a limited number of options from which the top and bottom walls can differ in size: the top wall being larger in size than the bottom wall, and vice versa. Furthermore, as the claims do not provide specificity as to how much larger in area the bottom wall must be compared to the area of the top quadrilateral, this reads on any difference in area, which would thus have been prima facie obvious in view of the teachings above. Even further however, Mohn teaches on the last four lines of page 9, that the area of the bottom panel can be larger than the area of the top panel, and therefore would have suggested that the area of the bottom panel can be larger than the area of the projected top quadrilateral.
In any case, it is further noted that Michel teaches a container that can hold liquids (see paragraph 18 of the machine translation) which comprises a bottom panel (see figure 16 and 17, item C1, C3, C21 and C22) which would have had a greater area than a top panel (see figure 16 and 17, item B1, B2, B3, B4), because at paragraph 38, the machine translation teaches that B2, B4, C21 and C22 can have a length of 40mm, B1 and B3 can have a length of 41mm and C1 and C3 can have a length of 42mm – thus teaching a bottom panel area which would have been greater than an area of the top projected quadrilateral (see page 12, lines 13-25 of the WIPO document). This therefore teaches that the area of the bottom panel of Figure 16-17 would have had a greater area than the area of the top panel of Figures 16-17. Selz also teaches containers where the area of the bottom panel is greater than the area of the top panel to provide a strong and rigid bottom (see page 1, lines 16-18; 52-57; see figure 2 and 4). Komeo also teaches a container containing liquid foods with a bottom panel (see figure 1 and 4, item 18, 20) having a larger area than the area of the top quadrilateral (see figure 1, item 44) so as to provide a container with a strengthened structure (see column 1, lines 32-45).
To therefore modify Mohn and to make the bottom panel with an area that is larger than the top panel would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design, as well as for providing additional strength to the top and bottom of the container.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komeo (US 2643815) and in further view of Ishikawa (US 20040011688) and Barbieri (US 20160325872).
Claim 24 differs from Komeo in specifically reciting, “wherein the top panel has a pour opening through which product inside the sealed package may be poured.”
Ishikawa teaches that the top panel can have a pour opening through which product inside may be poured (see figure 7-8). It would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art that such a pour opening as a result of a pour spout would have made it easier to open and close the sealed package, and to accordingly modify Komeo to include a pour opening through which product inside may be poured would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for this same purpose. Barbieri also teaches that the top panel has a pour opening (see figure 8, item 45) which has been taught to be useful for opening and then pouring the contents (see paragraph 105).
To therefore modify Komeo to include a pour opening through produce inside may be poured would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making it easier to access the contents of the package.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of the response, Applicant urges that having an area of the quadrilateral bottom that is different from an area of a projected top quadrilateral obtained by projecting, along said longitudinal direction, said quadrilateral top panel on a reference plane that is parallel to said quadrilateral bottom panel provides compensation for the bulging effect produced by gravity on the pourable product contained in the package when placed in the upright position.
It is noted however, that such a result would also have been reasonably expected from the prior art, because the prior art is teaching and suggesting a different area between a projected top quadrilateral and the bottom quadrilateral.
On page 6 of the response, regarding Siewert, Applicant urges that while the reference discloses a top quadrilateral area that is greater than that of the bottom quadrilateral panel, the reference does not teach the quadrilateral top panel extending at a sloping angle transverse to the longitudinal direction.
It is noted however, that the reference has not been relied on to specifically teach the sloping angle, but rather that it has been conventional to provide a top quadrilateral panel with an area greater than that of the bottom. Regarding the sloping angle, Ishikawa and Barbieri both provide motivation for including a sloping angle to the top quadrilateral panel.
On page 7 of the response, regarding Ishikawa and Barbieri, Applicant urges that a projection of Ishikawa’s slanted top panel would have been equivalent to the area of the bottom panel.
It is initially noted however, that Mohn already suggests a difference between the area of a top projected panel and the bottom panel. Barbieri has not been relied on to specifically teach a projected top portion but rather, to teach why it would have been advantageous to modify Mohn who already teaches a difference in the area between a projected top quadrilateral and the bottom quadrilateral and to provide some degree of a sloping angle to the quadrilateral top panel because Barbieri teaches that such a slope can be advantageous for increasing the visual impression of the package, and because Ishikawa teaches that such a slanted angle can be advantageous for accommodating a larger dispensing cap.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to how the projection has been presented are acknowledged, however, the claims are not limiting in this regard. It is noted that the specification does not limit how the projection has been taken. Rather, at paragraph 65 and figures 3 and 5, Applicant’s published specification is showing an area of the bottom panel 10 that is different from the area of a top quadrilateral Q. Figure 5 is described as showing the projection of a top panel 14 of the package on a horizontal plane containing a top front edge of the top panel itself (see paragraph 33 of the published specification). This appears similar to what has been presented with respect to Mohn. If it is intended that the projection is based off of an overhead plan view of the quadrilateral top panel, for example, then the claims are not clear in this regard. That is, by reciting that the top panel is “projected” this reads on the top panel, as shown, being subsequently projected in some manner onto a different plane (see the plain meaning of “projection” which can mean reproducing onto another surface). In any case, it is further noted that Mohn teaches that the top side edges are the same length as each other and the bottom side edges are the same length as each other, but that the bottom side edges have a different length from the top side edges. This is further teaching and suggesting that the area of the top quadrilateral and the area of the bottom quadrilateral differ and therefore the area of the projection of the top quadrilateral would have been different from the area of the bottom quadrilateral. Since Mohn’s top and bottom quadrilaterals are shown to be parallel to each other and are also taught can be of a different size from each other, the prior art is therefore suggesting that a projection of the top quadrilateral can have a different area from the area of the bottom quadrilateral.
Further on page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that there is no basis in Ishikawa and Barbieri for an area of the quadrilateral bottom panel being different from an area of a projected top quadrilateral obtained by projection, along the longitudinal direction
It is initially noted however, that Mohn already teaches that an area of a projected top quadrilateral would have been different from that of the bottom quadrilateral. Ishikawa and Barbieri provide further motivation for sloping said top quadrilateral panel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights