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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are partially persuasive. Since the last Office Action dated 03/20/2025, Claims 21, 26, 29 are amended; Claim 30 is canceled; Claims 33-40 remain withdrawn. Claims 21, 24, 26, 29, 41-44 remain.
The 112b/101 rejection is withdrawn. The 112a rejection remains because there is no express working example for the nexus of “the calculated length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”. From the prior consultation with TQAS for TC1700, the instant specification is un-enabling and without sufficient written description to calculate the necessary length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion and the axial deformation point. The arguments regarding the 112a rejection amounts to large generality that the dispensing portion has a predetermined mass and length and the axial deformation point cannot be arbitrarily selected. Though the arguments do not expressly state that the calculations are obvious, the arguments state that the calculation would need no experimentation or undue experimentation. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument and maintains the enablement rejection.
The 102/103 rejection is withdrawn and modified to be a 103 rejection due to amendments.
Previously relied upon primary reference (Gaylo et al, US-20180273418-A1) produces a glass container without excess weight/mass and length similar to what is described in [0011] wherein a glass blank is only cut once and subsequently heat/deformed to a desired shape. The axial deformation point to generate the dispensing portion is predetermined without considering the dispensing portion without excess mass in the calculation and selection for which the Examiner believes is inherent to the argued limitations that are non-enabled/enabling. Because the Applicant is arguing patentable weight to these limitations, the Examiner believes these limitations require a high level of hindsight outside the level of scope of an artisan to determine from the specification. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding arguments to the 103 rejection, Gaylo teaches of predetermined location to deform/heat the semi-finished glass container to form the dispensing end portion. The calculating step is inherent to the predetermined location of Gaylo to produce a dispensing portion without excess mass because there is no additional removal of product until Gaylo’s method cuts their glass blank (Fig. 3A) and forms the bottom of the vial [0076-77] wherein the thickness of the trailing end is considered for the overall longitudinal extent cut of the glass container blank [0089]. See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Regarding the new claim limitation wherein the Applicant cites support only from Fig. 3, new reference is required to read on the limitation. Conrad (US-2392104-A) teaches the limitation. Though Conrad does not expressly teach the dispensing portion without excess mass, the test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. The cyclical method of Gaylo can be modified with the first cut blank and starting geometry of the semi-finished container as taught by Conrad wherein the dispensing portion remains relied upon by the preset heating/forming process location of Gaylo is well within the skills of the operator.
Applicant argues that Gaylo [0075] teaches of cutting the glass tube after the glass tube was partially form. This is not persuasive to the Examiner. The forming is taught in Fig. 3C and 3D. The separating station/cutting step is Fig. 3B. Gaylo specifically teaches a “target length” to separate/cut the article which is a predetermined length that reads on the implication of the optimization of length similar to the instant application. Gaylo further teaches of forming the trailing end but does not teach of cutting the trailing end [0076-77].
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21/26 recites “the glass container blank is cut at a point so that resulting the overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished glass container has a length greater than the combination of the axial length of the base body (of the glass container) and the length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion” wherein Fig. 3 has L10 (overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished glass container) > L59 (axial length of the base body) + l51,10 (length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 29, and 41-44 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. Claims 21/26 recite “calculating a length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass” and “the axial deformation point is positioned along the individual overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished glass container at a length from the leading end equal to the calculated length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”. [0016, 27] of the instant PGPUB nominally state “can be determined, in particular calculated, on the basis of the anticipated deformation behavior of the dispensing portion”. The instant specification does not disclose how to do this calculation for the length of the glass container necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass” wherein the dispensing portion has complicated geometry as seen in 53 of Fig. 3.
Furthermore, amended Claims 21/26 recite “the axial deformation point is positioned along the individual overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished glass container at a length from the leading end equal to the calculated length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass” which has no support within the specification or initially filed claims.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 29-30, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for forming a glass container with a dispensing portion and optionally a counter support from a glass container blank, does not reasonably provide enablement for claim 21/26 to “calculating a length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the desired or predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass from the basis weight of the glass container blank” and “the axial deformation point is positioned along the individual overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished glass container at a length from the leading end equal to the calculated length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
A) Breadth of the claims: the claim 21 recites: measuring dimensions of the glass container blank to calculate glass cross-sectional area, calculate a basis weight using the cross-sectional area and density of the glass, calculating a length of the glass container blank to generate the dispensing portion without excess mass, cutting the glass container blank, selecting an axial deformation point to generate dispensing portion without excess mass, deforming the end portion to create the dispensing portion; claim 26 recites: measuring dimensions of glass container blank to calculate a glass cross-section area, calculating a basis weight using the cross-sectional area and density of the glass, calculating a length of glass container blank to generate dispensing portion without excess mass, cutting the glass container blank, selecting an axial deformation point to generate a leading end portion necessary to generate the dispensing portion without excess mass, heating to form the dispensing portion. Calculating and selecting steps are broad mental steps with generic limitations regarding the desired end result without directly instructing a skilled artisan to achieve the desired end result.
B) Nature of the invention: the invention asserts to produce a higher quality glass container subject to lower production tolerances [0006]. Once a reliable and reproducible glass container production method is set, production tolerances can be measured. The instant claim lends to calculation and modification of the location for each active method step wherein it is not clear if lower production tolerances can be achieved.
C) State of the prior art: The instant specification states WO-2005092805-A1 to use precise alignment position to achieve the desired dimensions. US-20180273418-A1 teaches of low production tolerances [0138] wherein the tube length drop station [0075] and burner 301 of Fig. 3a [0138] sets the individual longitudinal extent for each glass container and the set height of the forming tools 324 is selected to form the dispensing portion [0082]. US-20060031024-A1 teaches of using neural networks to input material properties and give the properties weights to optimize parameters that influence dimensional control of the product to be formed/manufactured.
D) Level of one of ordinary skill: a skilled artisan understand that there are industry standard sizes for pharmaceutical glass containers such as vials, syringes, and cartridges with specific dimensional tolerances allowed. A skilled artisan readily knows a deformation behavior of the glass blank occurs when heating/forming the end portions and the longitudinal location to enact the cutting or heating influences the final length of the product. Most glass container production methods rely on set locations to initiate active method steps to achieve reproducible results. There is calculation with experimentation to determine/select these set locations to result in the desired product shape and mass.
E) Level of predictability in the art: a skilled artisan can readily predict that the location of the cut has direct correlation to final length of the glass container product and from a distance from the end to form the end to the desired shape of the dispensing portion; however, a skilled artisan does not typically calculate the set location from the hindsight desired product and dispensing portion shape and mass without experimentation.
F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Regarding the “calculating a length…” limitation, the instant specification is silent regarding how the dimensions of the glass container blank with density of the glass and the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion contributes to the calculation of the glass container blank length without excess mass. Regarding the “axial deformation point” limitation, [0021] of the instant PGPUB provides the most detail relating the longitudinal extent of the dispensing portion to the axial deformation point on the glass container blank as a function of the individual glass container blank geometry, size and/or production tolerances; [0027] nominal state the longitudinal extent of the dispensing portion is determined/calculated on the basis of the anticipated deformation behavior; the above description is reiterated in [0043] without providing additional direction to the calculation and/or determination. It is not clear how this selection/calculation/determination is made, rather the optimum extent or deformation point is generally stated.
G) The existence of working examples: instant Fig. 3 and 4 show how the method should be functionally applied; however, similarly to the amount of direction provided by the inventor above, there lacks detail on the determination of the longitudinal extent.
H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: as with the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and the level of predictability, the instant specification fails to provide enough direction to overcome what a skilled artisan would rather continuously experiment lengths of the glass container blank, axial deformation points, and leading longitudinal extents until the desired or predetermined mass and length of the dispensing portion is achieved.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim(s) 21/26 encompasses choosing a predetermined length/longitudinal extent of the glass container blank for claim 21/26 and experimenting to determine the location of the axial deformation point based on the said length/longitudinal extent to achieve “the desired or predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”. The specification discloses sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that basis weight considers cross-sectional are and density of the mass [0009] of the instant PGPUB; a broadly stated “sensor system designed to determine, on the basis of the detected basis weight, an individual overall longitudinal extent of a semi-finished glass container” [0036] and further “a processor unit designed to determine an axial deformation point on the glass container blank for the forming tool on the basis of the determined longitudinal extent” [0043] is supported by the specification. However, the specification does not provide direction on how to make the determination of the length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass based on the calculation of the basis weight of the glass container blank implied and recited in [0011-14, 0027] while incorporating the predetermined mass and length of the dispensing portion, allowing a longitudinal extent tolerance of the generated glass container, how the optimum axial deformation point is determined as described by a generally cited calculation in [0016, 0021]. Based on the amendment, the length of the glass container blank is not used in claim 21/26 from after its introduction. Thus, the disclosed calculation/from the basis weight to a length of the glass container blank, the axial deformation point on the basis of the determined overall/leading longitudinal extent(s) does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claims (to achieve “the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24, 26, 29, and 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaylo et al (US-20180273418-A1) and further in view of Conrad (US-2392104-A).
Regarding claims 21, Gaylo teaches of a method for producing a glass container [0003] having a form-specific dispensing portion from a hollow glass container blank (tube) comprising the steps of cutting the glass container blank to form a semi-finished glass container [0081] (glass tube 102 is both the glass container blank and semi-finished glass container under broadest reasonable interpretation depending on the point of the process taught by Gaylo with changing lengths of the blank supported by [0071]); measuring one or more dimensions of the glass container blank, wherein said one or more dimensions is selected from the group consisting of an internal dimension, external dimension, wall thickness, and combinations thereof [0021], and calculating a glass cross-sectional area of the glass container blank from the measured one or more dimensions and calculating a basis weight of the glass container blank from the glass cross-sectional area of the glass container blank and a density of glass that forms the glass container blank (mental step from [0144, 148]), cutting the glass container blank at a predetermined length [0075] for predetermined mass per unit area [0174] and predetermined mass per unit length of the blank [0028] and mass variability [0138]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the target length specified by Gaylo effectively reads on both the individual longitudinal extent of a leading end portion and optionally of a trailing end portion as an inherent result of the cyclic production system described in Fig. 3. Alternatively, if it can be shown that this would not have been inherent then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the determination and cutting of the individual overall longitudinal extent (target length) determines the individual longitudinal extent of the leading end portion and optionally the individual longitudinal extent of the trailing end portion.
Gaylo teaches of deforming the semi-finished glass container at an axial deformation point to form the dispensing portion [0076, 83] wherein the axial deformation point is positioned to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion and predetermined length [0074] (in junction with the predetermined mass per unit area/length as cited earlier in the rejection). The semi-finished glass container is cut from the glass container blank with a leading end portion having a leading end longitudinal extent (end of 102 associated with holder end 130). Gaylo’s process does not generate excess mass due to its cyclical nature, satisfying the limitation “to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to transpose the cutting step to be before the heating at the axial deformation point to form the dispensing portion because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); MPEP 2144.04((IV)(C).
Gaylo teaches of mass and dimension variability of the glass container blank [0138]; Gaylo teaches the generated glass container is iteratively shaped into a desired shape such as an overall length [0074]. Gaylo does not expressly teach of the allowable tolerance of the overall longitudinal extent of the generated glass container. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (in junction with the predetermined mass per unit area/length as cited earlier in the rejection) Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
The transposition of the cutting step of modified Gaylo does not expressly teach the glass container blank is cut at a point so that resulting the overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished container has a length greater than the combination of the axial length of the base body and the length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion. In related manufacture of glass container art, Conrad teaches of manufacturing a glass container having a base body with an axial length (Fig. 3, glass barrel 20) and dispensing portion (axial bore 24, reduced conical tip 23) wherein the semi-finished container has a length (Fig. 2, barrel blank 32) has a length greater than the combination of the combination of the axial length of the base body and the length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion (Fig. 3, 20 + 23/24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further modify Gaylo so that the glass container blank is cut so that the semi-finished container has the optimal length for sufficient glass/tubing for the base body axial length and the length required for the dispensing portion to be further formed without excess mass (p. 2 left column Line 58-65).
Regarding claim 24, depending from claim 21, Gaylo teaches of burners 302 (Fig. 3A) and burner 320 (Fig. 3B) to heat and preheat the dispensing portion and counter support [0076-77] (first end and second end of the glass article, of which can be an end of an ampoule/cartridge/syringe).
Regarding claim 26, Gaylo teaches of a method for producing a glass container [0003] having a form-specific dispensing portion and a form-specific counter support [0074, 76-77] (desired shape, first end and second end of the glass article, of which can be an end of an ampoule/cartridge/syringe) from a hollow glass container blank (tube) comprising the steps of cutting the glass container blank to form a semi-finished glass container [0081] (glass tube 102 is both the glass container blank and semi-finished glass container under broadest reasonable interpretation depending on the point of the process taught by Gaylo with changing lengths of the blank supported by [0071]); measuring one or more dimensions of the glass container blank, wherein said one or more dimensions is selected from the group consisting of an internal dimension, external dimension, wall thickness, and combinations thereof [0021], and calculating a glass cross-sectional area of the glass container blank from the measured one or more dimensions and calculating a basis weight of the glass container blank from the glass cross-sectional area of the glass container blank and a density of glass that forms the glass container blank (mental step from [0144, 148]), cutting the glass container blank at a predetermined length [0075] for predetermined mass per unit area [0174] and predetermined mass per unit length of the blank [0028] and mass variability [0138]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the target length specified by Gaylo effectively reads on both the individual longitudinal extent of a leading end portion and optionally of a trailing end portion as an inherent result of the cyclic production system described in Fig. 3. Alternatively, if it can be shown that this would not have been inherent then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the determination and cutting of the individual overall longitudinal extent (target length) determines the individual longitudinal extent of the leading end portion and optionally the individual longitudinal extent of the trailing end portion.
Gaylo teaches of deforming the semi-finished glass container at an axial deformation point to form the dispensing portion [0076, 83] wherein the axial deformation point is positioned to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion and predetermined length [0074] (in junction with the predetermined mass per unit area/length as cited earlier in the rejection). The semi-finished glass container is cut from the glass container blank with a leading end portion having a leading end longitudinal extent (end of 102 associated with holder end 130). Gaylo’s process does not generate excess mass due to its cyclical nature, satisfying the limitation “to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion without excess mass”. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to transpose the cutting step to be before the heating at the axial deformation point to form the dispensing portion because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); MPEP 2144.04((IV)(C).
Gaylo teaches of mass and dimension variability of the glass container blank [0138]; Gaylo teaches the generated glass container is iteratively shaped into a desired shape such as an overall length [0074]. Gaylo does not expressly teach of the allowable tolerance of the overall longitudinal extent of the generated glass container. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (in junction with the predetermined mass per unit area/length as cited earlier in the rejection) Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
The transposition of the cutting step of modified Gaylo does not expressly teach the glass container blank is cut at a point so that resulting the overall longitudinal extent of the semi-finished container has a length greater than the combination of the axial length of the base body and the length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion. In related manufacture of glass container art, Conrad teaches of manufacturing a glass container having a base body with an axial length (Fig. 3, glass barrel 20), dispensing portion (axial bore 24, reduced conical tip 23), and trailing end (Fig. 3, flange 22) wherein the semi-finished container has a length (Fig. 2, barrel blank 32) has a length greater than the combination of the combination of the axial length of the base body and the length of the glass container blank necessary to generate the predetermined mass of the dispensing portion (Fig. 3, 20 + 23/24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further modify Gaylo so that the glass container blank is cut so that the semi-finished container has the optimal length for sufficient glass/tubing for the base body axial length and the length required for the dispensing portion to be further formed without excess mass (p. 2 left column Line 58-65).
Regarding claim 29, depending from claim 26, Gaylo teaches of forming tool 324c, reading on a roller, that interacts with the dispensing portion of the axial face of the glass container blank [0083] (Fig. 3D)
Regarding claim 41/43, depending from claim 21/26, Gaylo teaches of measuring external diameter, internal diameter, and wall thickness and use the measurements as process variables for the positioning/control system [0144] such as by an optical sensor [0145].
Regarding claim 42/44, depending from claim 21/26, Gaylo teaches of a tapered tip of an ampoule for the dispensing portion of the generated glass container [0083].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20180162765-A1 teach the relevant state of the prior art considered 03/15/2023.
US-1699305-A, US-3368588-A, EP-1754688-A1 teach the relevant state of the prior art
US-2199332-A, US-4142883-A, US-4330317-A, JP-H11310424-A, US-6341502-B1, US-20040007280-A1 teach the relevant state of the prior art
CN-108751678-A teaches calculating dispensing end portion length relative to glass container overall longitudinal extent (secondary reference for claim 21/26)
US-2935819-A teaches glass container manufacturing method and apparatus wherein the length of the glass container is dependent on where tube is thermally formed
US-3215517-A teaches preselected speed, cutting, and sealing of glass container from a tube blank without generating excess
US-3880637-A teaches method for producing glass container from tube blank with predetermined dispensing form shape and counter support without generating excess
US-6310318-B1 teaches dropping/feeding the tube blanks a predetermined distance to set the individual overall longitudinal extent of the glass container
US-20100255229-A1 teaches predetermined length and dimensions of the dispensing portion and individual overall longitudinal extent without generating excess
US-9758420-B2 teaches cutting the glass container blank at the predetermined individual overall longitudinal extent of the glass container and deforming at an axial deformation point to generate a dispensing portion without generating excess
US-20060031024-A1 teaches of using material property weights/mass to generate optimal parameter values for optimizing dimensions of the product for a manufacturing process
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741