DETAILED ACTION
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 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz US 2020/0129376 in view of Tan et al. US 2020/0375337 in view of JPH 05-278783 in view of Tindall US 3,083,107 as further evidenced by Swift JR US 1,990,145.
Regarding claim 1, Diaz discloses a sleeve (exterior package 12) and tray assembly (compartment 16), comprising a sleeve having a rectangular geometry and defining a cavity between a plurality of sidewalls and a plurality of end walls (paragraph [0036] and fig. 1). The tray (16) is disposed within and translatable within the cavity (paragraph [0114] and fig. 16]), the tray has a base (124), a first sidewall (126/136) extends from a first edge of the base, a second sidewall extends (126/136) from a second edge of the base opposite the first edge, and an end stop (178/190) extends from a third edge of the base extending between the first edge of the base and the second edge of the base (paragraph [0076], [0091] and fig. 8 and 9). The base, the first sidewall, and the second sidewall define a channel terminated by the end stop (paragraph [0096] and fig. 1 and 9).
Claim 1 differs from Diaz in the sleeve and tray assembly comprising a transparent sleeve and a transparent tray.
Tan discloses a sleeve (exterior package 12) and tray assembly (50), comprising a transparent sleeve (paragraph [0017]) having a rectangular geometry and defining a cavity between a plurality of sidewalls and a plurality of end walls (fig. 7). A transparent tray (50) is disposed within the cavity, the transparent tray comprises a base (portion below 54), a first sidewall extending from a first edge of the base, a second sidewall extending from a second edge of the base opposite the first edge, and an end stop extends from a third edge of the base extending between the first edge and the second edge (paragraph [0069]). Tan is providing a sleeve and tray assembly where both the sleeve and tray are transparent for the art recognized function of focusing consumers interest in the contents of the assembly by viewing the contained items. To therefore modify Diaz and make the sleeve and tray assembly of transparent materials as taught by Tan would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Diaz in view of Tan discloses that the sleeve and tray assembly would further contain discrete edible articles.
Claim 1 differs from Diaz in view of Tan in the discrete edible articles in the sleeve and tray assembly comprising a plurality of cubes comprising a flavourant disposed in the channel.
JPH ‘783 discloses it was well established in the art to package discrete edible articles such as flavorants (candy, gum, caramel, chocolate sweets) in the form of cubes (small block-shaped), by forming the cubes into rows, and then packaging said flavorants in an outer packaging (paragraph [0007]). Once it was known to form a flavourant into cubes, to form said cubes into rows, and then place said cubes into an outer packaging it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have disposed the flavorants of JPH ‘783 in the transparent package of Diaz in view of Tan to focus consumers interest on the flavorants by allowing the viewing of the contained flavorants.
Further regarding claim 1, it would be obvious that since the flavorants of Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 are not transparent that a surface texture of the flavourant is visible through the transparent tray and the transparent sleeve, and an edge of the end stop of the transparent tray would be visually obscured by the edge of the wall of the transparent sleeve and the surface texture of the flavourant.
Regarding the end stop of the transparent tray and an edge of an end wall of the plurality of end walls of the transparent sleeve define a first gap, wherein the first gap is between 0 millimeter and 3 millimeters, it is noted that when the transparent tray is inserted into the transparent sleeve as shown in figure 19 of Diaz it would be expected that the end stop of the transparent tray would contact an edge of an end wall of the plurality of end walls thereby defining a first gap of 0 (zero) millimeter. It is also seen that, whilst the drawings are not to scale, physically measuring figure 19 of Diaz shows a first gap measuring 2 millimeters which is between 0 millimeter and 3 millimeters. Further, once it was known to have a first gap between an end stop of the transparent tray and an edge of an end wall of the plurality of end walls of the transparent sleeve it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular distance, i.e., size of the gap absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. Limitations relating to the size of the gap would not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art sleeve and tray assembly. The mere scaling up or down of a prior art gap capable of being so scaled, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old gap so scaled (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.A.).
Claim 1 differs from Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in further reciting wherein the first sidewall comprises a first rounded corner and a third rounded corner and the second sidewall comprises a second rounded corner and a fourth rounded corner, wherein;
the first, second third, and fourth rounded corners are rounded along a direction of translation of the transparent tray in the cavity defined by the transparent sleeve;
the first, second, third, and fourth rounded corners are formed by a cut transparent material;
the first rounded corner is formed by a first unfolded portion of the first sidewall;
the second rounded corner is formed by a second unfolded portion of the second sidewall.
the third rounded corner is formed by a third unfolded portion of the first sidewall opposite the first unfolded portion; and
the fourth rounded corner is formed by a fourth unfolded portion of the second sidewall opposite the second unfolded portion.
Tindall discloses a container assembly (10) having a transparent sleeve having a rectangular geometry between a plurality of sidewalls and a plurality of end walls (wrapper 13) (col. 2, ln 36 – 41 and fig. 1 and 2). A tray (11) is disposed within the cavity, which tray is translatable within the cavity (fig. 1 and 2). The tray comprises a base, a first sidewall extending from a first edge of the base and a second sidewall extending from a second edge of the base opposite the first edge. The first sidewall comprises a first rounded corner and a third rounded corner and the second sidewall comprises a second rounded corner and a fourth rounded corner. As clearly seen in figures 2 and 3 the first, second, third, and fourth rounded corners are rounded along a direction of translation of the tray in the cavity defined by the sleeve, said first, second, third, and fourth rounded corners are formed by a cut material in unfolded portions of their respective sidewalls, and an end stop (extending shoulder 15) extends from a third edge of the base extending between the first edge of the base and the second edge of the base and the third rounded corner and the fourth rounded corner are adjacent the end stop (col. 1, ln 45 – 51 and fig. 2 and 4). Tindall is providing the first and second sidewalls with first and second rounded corners respectively for the art recognized function of being less likely to meet resistance of the sleeve as the tray is translated, that is slide, longitudinally (col. 2, ln 24 – 28) which is to say allowing the sidewalls to slip into and out of place without interference which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Diaz in view of Tran in view of JPH ‘783 and provide rounded corners to the first sidewall and the second sidewall as taught by Tindall to allow the first and second sidewalls to slip into and out of place without interference would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Swift provides further evidence that it was notoriously old to provide a sleeve and tray assembly where the sleeve is translatable within the cavity and a first sidewall would comprise a first rounded corner and a third rounded corner and a second sidewall would comprise a second rounded corner and a fourth rounded corner (page 2, right column, ln 5 – 23 and fig. 1). Swift is providing a first sidewall with first and third rounded corners and a second sidewall with second and fourth rounded corners for the art recognized function of allowing the tray to be easily reinserted into the sleeve by since the rounded corners permit the tray to enter readily between the sidewalls of the sleeve therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall and provide the corners of the sidewalls of the tray with rounded corners as taught by Swift.
Claim 12 is rejected over Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Diaz discloses a sleeve (exterior package 12) and tray assembly (compartment 16), comprising a sleeve having a rectangular geometry and defining a cavity between a plurality of sidewalls and a plurality of end walls (paragraph [0036] and fig. 1).
The tray (16) is disposed within and translatable within the cavity the cavity (paragraph [0114] and fig. 16]), the tray has a base (124), a first sidewall (126/136) extends from a first edge of the base, a second sidewall extends (126/136) from a second edge of the base opposite the first edge, and an end stop (178/190) extends from a third edge of the base extending between the first edge of the base and the second edge of the base (paragraph [0076], [0091] and fig. 8 and 9). The base, the first sidewall, and the second sidewall define a channel terminated by the end stop (paragraph [0096] and fig. 1 and 9).
Claim 25 differs from Diaz in the sleeve and tray assembly comprising a transparent sleeve and a transparent tray.
Tan discloses a sleeve (exterior package 12) and tray assembly (50), comprising a transparent sleeve (paragraph [0017]) having a rectangular geometry and defining a cavity between a plurality of sidewalls and a plurality of end walls (fig. 7). A transparent tray (50) is disposed within the cavity, the transparent tray comprises a base (portion below 54), a first sidewall extending from a first edge of the base, a second sidewall extending from a second edge of the base opposite the first edge, and an end stop extends from a third edge of the base extending between the first edge and the second edge (paragraph [0069]). Tan is providing a sleeve and tray assembly where both the sleeve and tray are transparent for the art recognized function of focusing consumers interest in the contents of the assembly by viewing the contained items. To therefore modify Diaz and make the sleeve and tray assembly of transparent materials as taught by Tan would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Diaz in view of Tan discloses that the sleeve and tray assembly would further contain discrete edible articles.
Claim 25 differs from Diaz in view of Tan in the discrete edible articles in the sleeve and tray assembly comprising a plurality of cubes comprising a flavourant disposed in the channel.
JPH ‘783 discloses it was well established in the art to package discrete edible articles such as flavorants (candy, gum, caramel, chocolate sweets) in the form of cubes (small block-shaped), by forming the cubes into rows, and then packaging said flavorants in an outer packaging (paragraph [0007]). Once it was known to form a flavourant into cubes, to form said cubes into rows, and then place said cubes into an outer packaging it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have disposed the flavorants of JPH ‘783 in the transparent package of Diaz in view of Tan to focus consumers interest on the flavorants by allowing the viewing of the contained flavorants.
Further regarding claim 25, it would be obvious that since the flavorants of Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 are not transparent that a surface texture of the flavourant is visible through the transparent tray and the transparent sleeve, and an edge of the end stop of the transparent tray would be visually obscured by the edge of the wall of the transparent sleeve and the surface texture of the flavourant.
Claim 25 differs from Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in the first sidewall comprising a first rounded corner and the second sidewall comprising a second rounded corner.
Claim 25 differs from Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in now further reciting:
wherein the first sidewall comprises a first rounded corner and a third rounded corner and the second sidewall comprises a second rounded corner and a fourth rounded corner, wherein;
the first, second, third, and fourth rounded corners are rounded along a direction of translation of the transparent tray in the cavity defined by the transparent sleeve;
the first rounded corner is opposite, in the direction of translation, the third rounded corner;
the second rounded corner is opposite, in the direction of translation, the fourth rounded corner;
the first rounded corner, the third rounded corner, and the first sidewall comprise a substantially flat material after an assembly of the transparent tray; and
the second rounded corner, the fourth rounded corner, and the second sidewall comprise a substantially flat material after an assembly of the transparent tray.
Tindall discloses a container assembly (10) having a transparent sleeve having a rectangular geometry between a plurality of sidewalls and a plurality of end walls (wrapper 13) (col. 2, ln 36 – 41 and fig. 1 and 2). A tray (11) is disposed within the cavity, which tray is translatable within the cavity (fig. 1 and 2). The tray comprises a base, a first sidewall extending from a first edge of the base and a second sidewall extending from a second edge of the base opposite the first edge. The first sidewall comprises a first rounded corner and a third rounded corner and the second sidewall comprises a second rounded corner and a fourth rounded corner. As clearly seen in figures 2 and 3 the first, second, third, and fourth rounded corners are rounded along a direction of translation of the tray in the cavity defined by the sleeve, said first, second, third, and fourth rounded corners comprise a substantially flat material after an assembly of the transparent tray and an end stop (extending shoulder 15) extends from a third edge of the base extending between the first edge of the base and the second edge of the base and the third rounded corner and the fourth rounded corner are adjacent the end stop (col. 1, ln 45 – 51 and fig. 2 and 4).
Tindall is providing the first and second sidewalls with first and second rounded corners respectively for the art recognized function of being less likely to meet resistance of the sleeve as the tray is translated, that is slide, longitudinally (col. 2, ln 24 – 28) which is to say allowing the sidewalls to slip into and out of place without interference which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Diaz in view of Tran in view of JPH ‘783 and provide rounded corners to the first sidewall and the second sidewall as taught by Tindall to allow the first and second sidewalls to slip into and out of place without interference would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Swift provides further evidence that it was notoriously old to provide a sleeve and tray assembly where the sleeve is translatable within the cavity and a first sidewall would comprise a first rounded corner and a third rounded corner and a second sidewall would comprise a second rounded corner and a fourth rounded corner (page 2, right column, ln 5 – 23 and fig. 1). Swift is providing a first sidewall with first and third rounded corners and a second sidewall with second and fourth rounded corners for the art recognized function of allowing the tray to be easily reinserted into the sleeve by since the rounded corners permit the tray to enter readily between the sidewalls of the sleeve therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall and provide the corners of the sidewalls of the tray with rounded corners as taught by Swift.
Regarding claim 26, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindal as further evidenced by Swift disclose there would be an end tab extending from a second end wall of the plurality of end walls of the transparent sleeve, where the end first wall and the second end wall completely enclose the plurality of cubes within in the sleeve and tray assembly in the closed position (‘337, fig. 3, 4, and 14). Regarding the end tab resting between a cube of the plurality of cubes and the base of the transparent tray in the closed position, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the specific resting place of the end tab as this would constitute a rearrangement of parts since the particular placement of the end tab would not have modified the function of the tab. This is to say that the particular placement of the tab would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.C.).
Claims 2, 4 – 6, 8, 13, 14, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz in view of Tan et al. US 20200375337 in view of JPH 05-278783 in view of Tindall US 3,083,107 as further evidenced by Swift JR US 1,990,145 as further evidenced by JP 61-58546.
Regarding claim 2, as further evidenced by JP ‘546 it is well known that the flavourant disclosed by Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift would comprise (sugar, water, a dye colorants) (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose the flavourant would be in the form of a plurality of cubes. Further it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the cubes having substantially smooth surfaces absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claim 5, once it was known to provide a sleeve and tray assembly where the tray would fit within the cavity of the sleeve it is not seen that patentability would be conferred by the particular dimensions of the sidewall of the transparent tray with respect to the sidewall of the transparent tray since Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose the tray would be removably slidable from the cavity of said sleeve. The mere scaling up of a prior art package capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old package so scaled (MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.).
Regarding claim 6, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose an edge of the first sidewall of the transparent tray would contact a first sidewall from the plurality of side wall of the transparent sleeve where the edge of the first sidewall is opposite the first edge of the base (‘376, fig. 17) (‘337, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose the tray would have an end stop. With respect to the remaining recitations beginning “the end stop of the transparent tray urges the cubes out of the transparent tray in response to the transparent tray translating out from the transparent sleeve” these are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the transparent sleeve and tray assembly.
In this regard applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP 2114 which states that “an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”. That is to say, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and then further limitations merely state, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct structural definition of any of the claimed invention’s structural limitations, then any limitations regarding the intended use of the device are of no significance to claim construction. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim which Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 obviously does. Further, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is The Office’s position that the further limitations do not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. “the end stop of the transparent tray urges the cubes out of the transparent tray in response to the transparent tray translating out from the transparent sleeve”, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, that is Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 and further that the prior art structure, which is identical and/or obvious in view of the prior art to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Claim 13 is rejected over Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claims 2 and 4.
Claim 14 is rejected over Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, in that a second gap and a third gap are claimed as being 0 millimeter, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose the edge of the first sidewall (edge above reference signs 126/132) of the transparent tray and an edge of the first sidewall (30) from the plurality of sidewalls of the transparent sleeve are touching and therefore define a second gap, an edge of the second sidewall (128/136) of the transparent tray and an edge of a second sidewall (26) from the plurality of sidewalls of the transparent sleeve are touching and therefore define a third gap, (fig. 13, 14, and 17). Further, once it was known to have a first gap between an end stop of the transparent tray and an edge of an end wall of the plurality of end walls of the transparent sleeve it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular distance, i.e., size of the gap absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. Limitations relating to the size of the gap would not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art sleeve and tray assembly. The mere scaling up or down of a prior art gap capable of being so scaled, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old gap so scaled (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.A.).
Regarding claim 24, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose there would be an end tab extending from a second sleeve end wall of the plurality of sleeve end walls, where the sleeve end wall and the second sleeve end wall completely enclose the plurality of cubes within in the sleeve and tray assembly in the closed configuration (‘337, fig. 3, 4, and 14). Regarding the end tab resting between a cube of the plurality of cubes and the base of the transparent tray in the closed position, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the specific resting place of the end tab as this would constitute a rearrangement of parts since the particular placement of the end tab would not have modified the function of the tab. This is to say that the particular placement of the tab would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.C.).
Claims 9 – 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz in view of Tan et al. US 20200375337 in view of JPH 05-278783 in view of Tindall US 3,083,107 as further evidenced by Swift JR US 1,990,145 as further evidenced by JP 61-58546 in view of Stewart et al. US 2019/0112115.
Regarding claims 9 – 11, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 disclose that there would be a pull tab (‘376, 214) formed integrally with the base of the transparent tray (‘376, fig. 15/16). Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 further disclose the transparent tray would be capable of translating out of the transparent sleeve in a direction of the extension of the pull tab from the transparent sleeve in response to a pulling force exerted on the pull tab (‘376, fig. 15/16).
Claims 9 – 11 differ from Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 in the pull tab extending from said sleeve when the sleeve and tray are in a closed position and there is an opening to hang the sleeve and tray assembly.
Stewart discloses a tray and sleeve assembly where the tray comprises a tab (60) formed integrally with the base of the tray and extending from the sleeve when the sleeve and tray are in the closed position and the tab defines an opening (62) to hang the sleeve and tray assembly (paragraph [0030], fig. 4 and 5). Stewart is providing the tab and defining an opening therein for the art recognized function of allowing said assembly to by hung on a peg for display which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 and have the pull tab extend from the transparent sleeve when the sleeve and tray are in a closed position and provide an opening in the pull tab to allow the assembly to be hung on a peg for display would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 23, Diaz in view of Tan in view of JPH ‘783 in view of Tindall as further evidenced by Swift as further evidenced by JP ‘546 in view of Stewart disclose there would be an end tab extending from a second end wall of the plurality of end walls of the transparent sleeve, where the end wall and the second end wall of the plurality of end walls completely enclose the plurality of cubes within in the sleeve and tray assembly in the closed position (‘337, fig. 3, 4, and 14). Regarding the end tab resting between a cube of the plurality of cubes and the base of the transparent tray in the closed position, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the specific resting place of the end tab as this would constitute a rearrangement of parts since the particular placement of the end tab would not have modified the function of the tab. This is to say that the particular placement of the tab would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.C.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 26 November 2025
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792