Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. Given all three of them are apparatus/device claims, absent of the actor who is performing the sensing or the creation of proximity the circuit is inoperable. Note the language of claim 1 has been amended as “sensing the proximity of the conductive substance”. Also note the actor here could be a non-statutory type of person doing the sensing or could be of a capacitor or other types of missing components. Note that given the essential elements may be missing, it is a 112 first rejection as well, alternatively.
Priority Date of Claims
A detailed review of such the following has been provided for the analysis of the Priority Date of Claims:
The language of the amendment of “proximity…” is not treated as having the meaning of connectivity to a capacitor. Given it does not construct the meaning of connectivity related to the capacitance being triggered as a discrete switch; in other words, so long as there is no support for the signal is of continuous sending to preserve the meaning of a pressure or near pressure changing in degree of proximate sensing to which is the polar opposite of a discrete switch, the limitation is not supported. That is in part of the current disclosure.
Additionally, as dated back in the priority of this case, there were mentions of proximity but it was in relation to sensing alone not detecting a touch–again, it was not for the understanding of proximity of sensing a touch nor a human touch. Hence, this current recitation of claim is not supported by the original disclosure of the application of which this case was original filed, nor it is evident in admission by the Remarks that there could be a priority support to the current amended claim as dates back to the prior parent filings (note: this is a CIP of the prior applications filed).
When considering the priority date for application 17/306450, it is not that of the parent provisional applications (2004). The proper effective filing date appears to be determined by one of the parent applications with the addition of features to the specification and claims concerning “human touch”. This concept first appears in the application family in application 16/740225 filed 1/10/2020 (Note that application 16/740225 should have been identified as a CIP because of the new matter in the specification). As such, children including 17/306450 should have been deemed as AIA instead of their current status of pre-AIA since 16/740225 is after the AIA date of 2013). Since such proximity of sensing of which has to be done by a human (absent of the correlation of it being a switch as performed by a capacitor) is first introduced by 16/740225 is recited in the independent claims 1, 7 and 14, of 17/306450, all of the claims have the effective filing date of the parent 16/740225, which is 1/10/2020.
Effectively, due to the nature of this claim language is not support by both the current application as filed originally and as according to the prior applications, and given the fact the claim construction only leans the meaning of this capacitive change (i.e., signal continuously being sent) is not a discrete switch, therefore it is still related to a human making a touch.
In essence, it is deemed as the same scope of the original wording being the case of reasoning as its scope of claim. Thus, the same rejection in USC 112 is instated.
Reopen Prosecution – After Notice of Allowance
As previously stated in prior Office action, the 17/306450 claims are very broad and are not limited to the invention shown in the figures and the specification. This allows the rejection of claim 1, as an example, by merely applying known products on the market (see below products).
PRODUCT 1. EOSO TOUCHPAD KEYBOARD CASE FOR 9", 10",10.1",10.5" TABLETS,2-IN-1 BLUETOOTH WIRELESS KEYBOARD WITH TOUCHPAD & LEATHER FOLIO COVER(BLACK) (Release Date: August 26, 2018)
PNG
media_image1.png
527
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 1. Amazon Product Information (source: https://www.amazon.com/TouchPad-Keyboard-Bluetooth-Wireless-Touchpad/dp/B07Q5NSWYV) of EOSO TOUCHPAD KEYBOARD CASE FOR 9", 10",10.1",10.5" TABLETS,2-IN-1 BLUETOOTH WIRELESS KEYBOARD WITH TOUCHPAD & LEATHER FOLIO COVER(BLACK)
PNG
media_image2.png
279
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG 2. Amazon Information of Keyboard and a Tablet are Associated via Bluetooth (source: https://www.amazon.com/TouchPad-Keyboard-Bluetooth-Wireless-Touchpad/dp/B07Q5NSWYV) of EOSO TOUCHPAD KEYBOARD CASE FOR 9", 10",10.1",10.5" TABLETS,2-IN-1 BLUETOOTH WIRELESS KEYBOARD WITH TOUCHPAD & LEATHER FOLIO COVER(BLACK)
PNG
media_image3.png
279
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG 3. Amazon Information of the Keyboard and various Smartphones, Tablets as well as TV or Monitors that are Bluetooth compatible (source: https://www.amazon.com/TouchPad-Keyboard-Bluetooth-Wireless-Touchpad/dp/B07Q5NSWYV) of EOSO TOUCHPAD KEYBOARD CASE FOR 9", 10",10.1",10.5" TABLETS,2-IN-1 BLUETOOTH WIRELESS KEYBOARD WITH TOUCHPAD & LEATHER FOLIO COVER(BLACK)
PNG
media_image4.png
501
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG 4. Amazon Information of the USB Charging Port as well as the Trackpad being a Human Touch Sensing Touchpad (source: https://www.amazon.com/TouchPad-Keyboard-Bluetooth-Wireless-Touchpad/dp/B07Q5NSWYV) of EOSO TOUCHPAD KEYBOARD CASE FOR 9", 10",10.1",10.5" TABLETS,2-IN-1 BLUETOOTH WIRELESS KEYBOARD WITH TOUCHPAD & LEATHER FOLIO COVER(BLACK)
PNG
media_image5.png
213
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 5. Amazon Information of the Keyboard and Touchpad citing “it is easy to setup bluetooth instruction by the track pad how to set up for the first time. …mouse pad full laptop functional mousepad” by the Consumer. Based on Customer’s Review (Dated: February 2, 2024): Video Screenshot and Descriptive Comments are Shown (source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R11N4HX6DGH8TK?ref=dp_vse_lbvc__sml) of EOSO TOUCHPAD KEYBOARD CASE FOR 9", 10",10.1",10.5" TABLETS,2-IN-1 BLUETOOTH WIRELESS KEYBOARD WITH TOUCHPAD & LEATHER FOLIO COVER(BLACK). Note: Full Page Version is in Appendix named as “Amazon Customer’s Full Review Page”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
First, claims 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not provide sufficient written description to one of ordinary in the art such that one would readily be able to reasonably ascertain the meaning for the actual specificity of a three-way switch and, to that point, there was no professed information about how to use such switch within the original disclosure of this application’s specification and its claims.
Furthermore, all claim (i.e., claims 1-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For instance, Claim 1 recites:
A data communication device comprising:
a first wireless data communications circuit, at least two first LEDs, a first antenna, and a circuit configured to sense the proximity of the conductive substance, wherein the first wireless data communications circuit is configured to:
be powered by a first driver that receives AC voltage from a mains power source via a first connection and provides a low voltage DC output,
wirelessly transmit data signals, via the first antenna, to a separate, second device in response to the circuit sensing the proximity of the conductive substance, and
cause at least one LED of the second device to increase a brightness level of light in response to the second device receiving the data signals, wherein the second device further includes a second wireless data communications circuit, at least one wired data communications circuit, and a second antenna,
wherein the second device further includes a second wireless data communications circuit, at least one wired data communications circuit, and a second antenna, wherein the second device is configured to be powered by a second driver that receives AC voltage from the mains power source via a second, separate connection.
The claim (and other independent claims 7 and 14) are a genus claim relating to a specification which only teaches a limited species embodiment of LEDs and LED drivers passing, as an example, 5V DC or 12 V DC voltage for higher voltage LED. Further, as one of the embodiments, if so desired, each of the opposing parallel LEDs having an individual RC network are in series to the power connection lead.
Taken the disclosed specification as a whole, the disclosed species do not teach, disclose or anticipate the breadth of the genus of inventions spanned by the claims. One interpretation of the claim construction is having LEDs and the drivers employed in a tablet (or other mobile devices). A first wireless data communications circuit, at least two first LEDs, a first antenna, and a circuit configured to sense the proximity of the conductive substance, wherein the first wireless data communications circuit would make a system of an external keyboard/keypad that integrates by wireless communication with a tablet which consist of LED drivers and LEDs. Then the command has communicated between the external device with the tablet to be able to control on/off or dimming of the backlight of the display, and the sensing is done through either using a sensing mechanism of a signal link or other means of communications. This position is supported by the rejection of the claims using the cited art of related to the computer device explained above which apply a genus embodiment that is not anticipated or shown possession of in the specification.
As provided by the MPEP 2163, the use of a genus claim without supporting written description of the species covered by the genus claim causes the claims to fail 35 USC 112 first paragraph as described below:
MPEP 2163
Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, "Written Description" Requirement [R-5], II. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION, A.-3.-(a)-ii)
For each claim drawn to a genus:
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. See also < Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998), > wherein < the disclosure of a species in the parent application did not suffice to provide written description support for the genus in the child application.
… If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
As to the foregoing, the claims of this Applicant have failed the written description requirement under 35 USC 112 first paragraph. This rejection may be overcome by claiming the details of the species embodiment of the invention which would limit the genus breadth of the claims to embodiments that are anticipated by the disclosed embodiment of the invention if there were suitable amendments without introducing new matter.
Second, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. It is found that claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 14 and 16 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
These four claims as listed contain “detect human touch via capacitive sensing” are now amended to be “sensing the proximity of the conductive substance”, which means the same scope given you may only have proximity due to a human exercising this as part, absent of a trigger/switch, as the recitations of the claim limitations. The disclosure provides in at least paragraph [0169] that “[a]nother aspect of the invention is sensing proximity with impedance changes within the directional circuits described herein (as it could be with any embodiment disclosed herein) by approaching any of the directional circuits or transmission conductors (also any of which are described herein), for example approaching 1108 (shown in FIG. 37) and/or 1124 (as shown in FIG. 38) with a conductive substance such as a person, including the touch of a person (human touch), or metallic material thereby changing the circulation of current flow within the directional circuit by changes in impedance through the capacitance of the conductive substance”, with emphasis added. Thus, unless the claim is providing a rationale of having to adjust/change the impedance (signal) of the capacitance (which was not cited) then the signal is deemed as continuous; therefore, it cannot be a discrete switch.
Here, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor. It goes beyond the reasonable doubt to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the Applicant at the time of invention had not shown possession of a provided innovative concept such including the touch of a person being a written portion of the application’s original filing of this current and/or prior applications within the limits and bounds of the prosecution history. Given there is lack of sufficient written disclosure; hence, this recited portion would not be deemed as comply to comply with the written description requirement.
Herein, the claim(s) contains subject matter are not affirmed by the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor owned, in actual fact, the recitation made in the claim language.
The rest of the claims within this application is also rejected based on their dependency of claims 1, 7 and 14 under this rejection.
As such, all claims were deemed as rejected under this statutory rejection section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention, Product 1 available Aug 2018, as the “the other public availability of the invention”; wherein the Product 1 is evidentiary as found in Figures 1-5, and further the example Bluetooth tablet Samsung Galaxy Tablet A (2018, 10.5 Model SM-595) manual (2019) (hereinafter, “Manual-G”) and the Samsung Galaxy A Product Specifications (2018) (hereinafter “G-Spec”). Note: Manual-G is named as “Galaxy A 2018 model SM-T59X Manual 2019, and G-Spec is named as “Galaxy A 2018” in the Appendix.
Regarding claim 1, known products on the market discloses a data communication device comprising (For this rejection the following components available since about 2018 are assumed to be part of the device: stylus/tablets/mobile devices with Bluetooth and a USB wireless connection with tablets: e.g., iPad or Android tablets, in particular the Samsung Tab A 8.0 2018 without an integrated keyboard, a separate independent Bluetooth keyboard with a capacitive touchpad that connects to the tablet and is used as input such as moving the cursor on the tablet display, and individual wall WARTS, the AC adapters, to power/charge the tablet and keyboard, see FIGs. 1-5):
a first wireless data communications circuit (the Bluetooth transmitter in the keyboard, see FIG. 2), at least two first LEDs (note that these LEDs are not required to be located in the component which has the first communication circuit and can be in the tablet display, also note that sample stylus/tablets/mobile devices are shown in FIGs. 2 and 3, For the purpose of the examination the selected tablet is the Samsung Tab A 8.0 2018, see G-Spec & Manual-G which has a display of type IPS LCD which is an LED based display), a first antenna (the antenna in the keyboard as an inherent feature of the Bluetooth communication, FIG. 3), and a circuit configured to sense the proximity of the conductive substance (the touchpad on the keyboard, see FIG. 4), wherein the first wireless data communications circuit is configured to:
(a) be powered by a first driver that receives AC voltage from a mains power source via a first connection and provides a low voltage DC output (based on the information of the keyboard is a USB connectivity, the Examiner takes official notice that the USB Port provides the voltage by receiving AC voltage from a mains power source such as via a wall plug power source to provide the low voltage DC supply, see FIG. 4),
(b) wirelessly transmit data signals, via the first antenna, to a separate, second device in response to the circuit sensing the proximity of the conductive substance (the touchpad on the keyboard responding to a motion to send a signal over Bluetooth to the tablet to move a cursor on the tablet screen, FIGs. 2 and 5, Samsung Tab A 8.0 2018, see G-Spec & Manual-G using the Bluetooth capability), and
(c) cause at least one LED of the second device to increase a brightness level of light in response to the second device receiving the data signals, wherein the second device further includes a second wireless data communications circuit, at least one wired data communications circuit, and a second antenna (the cursor moving on the tablet display causing various LEDs lit pixels to change brightness with mousepad/touchpad, FIGs. 2 and 5, Samsung Tab A 8.0 2018, see G-Spec & Manual-G),
wherein the second device (the tablet, FIGs. 2 and 3, Samsung Tab A 8.0 2018, see G-Spec & Manual-G) further includes a second wireless data communications circuit (the Bluetooth transceiver of the tablet, FIGs. 3 and 4, G-Spec pg. 4), at least one wired data communications circuit (the USB connector on the tablet, see FIG. 4), and a second antenna (the Bluetooth antenna of the tablet, see FIGs. 2 and 3, Manual-G page 11), wherein the second device is configured to be powered by a second driver that receives AC voltage from the mains power source via a second, separate connection (the tablet provides the use of a second wall WART AC power supply for powering the tablet, see FIGs. 2 and 3, and Manual-G pg 14).
Regarding claim 3, known products on the market discloses the data communication device of Claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the first wireless data communications circuit (the Bluetooth transmitter in the keyboard, see FIGs. 2 and 3), the at least two first (note that these LEDs are not required to be located in the component which has the first communication circuit and can be in the tablet display, also note that sample stylus/tablets/mobile devices in FIGs. 2 and 3), the first antenna (the antenna in the keyboard as an inherent feature), and the circuit configured to sense the proximity of the conductive substance are all contained within a single package (FIG. 4, the touchpad on the keyboard is of the keyboard module/package).
Regarding claim 4, known products on the market discloses the data communication device of Claim 1 (see rejection in Claim 1), wherein the second wireless data communications circuit (the Bluetooth transceiver of the tablet, see FIGs. 2 and 3), and the second antenna are all contained within a single package (Bluetooth transceiver module/package as an inherent feature).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention, Product 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0177975 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, known products on the market (such as in Product 1) discloses the data communication device of Claim 1; however, it does not specify wherein the at least two first LEDs include organic light emitting diodes.
In analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the at least two first LEDs include organic light emitting diodes ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize OLED as the suitable display technology of a display assembly in Lee since it is desirable to enable the advancement of OLED being thin and efficient with energy, providing user the deep blacks of the display thus increasing the screen brightness range.
Regarding claim 5, known products on the market (such as in Product 1) discloses the data communication device of Claim 1; however, it does not specify further comprising a power supply configured to increase power supplied to the at least two first LEDs when the circuit is sensing the proximity of the conductive substance.
In analogous art, Lee teaches a power supply configured to increase power supplied to the at least two first LEDs when the circuit detects human touch ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be able to detect human touch in the display screen as an input for adjusting brightness in Lee since it is desirable to enable the gradual change of display change to find the depth of OLED display for the user experience, providing user the dynamic range of ability adjusting experience.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over known products on the market in view of Pollmann et al. (US 2015/0049028 A1, hereinafter “Pollmann”).
Regarding claim 6, known products on the market (such as in Product 1) discloses the data communication device of Claim 1; however, it does not specify further comprising a three-way switch.
In analogous art, Pollmann teaches a three-way switch ([0014] and [0044]: The sensor signal filter 46 is configured to be capable of selectively communicating the positional input signal from the sensor 30 to a sensor signal interface 47 (e.g., USB interface) of the tablet processor 28, to a sensor signal interface 49 (e.g., USB port) of the external computer 12 containing the external processor 18 (through an interface connector in the data cable 20A, see FIG. 1A), or to neither the tablet processor 28 nor the external processor 18, i.e., to an OFF terminal provided in the three-way switch. As used herein, not communicating the positional input signal to neither of the processors (OFF terminal) refers to a state in which the positional input signal is not used for its intended function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be able to include a tablet computer processor controls the sensor signal filter (e.g., a three-way switch) since it is desirable to enable the function of automatically switch operation modes of the sensor based on the link status of the tablet computer relative to the separate external device (see [0044], Pollmann).
Regarding the Prior Art
The prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious of the claims 7-20. In particular, although the individual components may be taught in the prior art, the interconnection of the components with specific features is novel in claims 7 and 14. Claims 8-13 and 15-20 depend on the novel claims of 7 and 14, share the same priority date, and thereby are also novel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks were considered and the response has been included in the above sections. A call was made to the Applicant’s representative and the Examiner had provided the information as accordingly.
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 MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on (571) 270-7101. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
7/25/2025