Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10-14, 21-22, 25-33 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 32, and 33 are amended.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8-9, 15-20, 23-24 are canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “and one or more removable pressure adhesives configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible shipping container, […] wherein the reversible and removable lid […] is removable from the reversible body using the one or more removable pressure adhesives” as claimed in clam 1, 26, and 33 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more snap-fit components configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible shipping container” as claimed in clam 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 recites “the reversible shipping container includes one or more snap-fit component configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible container”. However, the specification fails to provide support for a reversible container that uses pressure adhesive (claim 1) and one or more snap-fit component (claim 13) to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible container, as such this is considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the reversible shipping container includes one or more snap-fit component configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible container”. It is unclear as to where this snap-fit component is incorporated to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible container. Claim 1 already incorporates removable pressure adhesive. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how this snap-fit component is incorporated along with the removable pressure adhesive. Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits. [W]here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. MPEP 2173.06(II). In this case, there would require a great deal of speculation as to how and where this component is implemented along with removable pressure adhesive. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue. Further correction and or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN (US 1916227) in view of Brauner (US 4472896), Leifer (US 20060000736), Morgan (US 7337909) Turnbull (US 3355087), REPKO (US 3372802) and Duner (US 20120305433).
Regarding claim 1, LORENZEN disclose, A shipping container (See annotated fig. below) comprising: a body defining a receptacle (See annotated fig. below), the body formed of a shipping container material (Page 1; lines 55-57 “The individual packages 10 are carried in the surrounding carton 13 (which may advantageously be made of cardboard”); a lid (See annotated fig. below)enclosing the receptacle, the lid formed of the shipping container material; interior branding disposed on an interior surface of the lid (See annotated fig. below); a first flavor of ships in own container (SIOC) confectionery product (See annotated fig. below) disposed within the receptacle; a second flavor of SIOC confectionery product (See annotated fig. below); wherein the first flavor of SIOC confectionery product and the second flavor of SIOC confectionery product do not include secondary packaging and the receptacle does not include protective shipping materials, wherein the first flavor of SIOC confectionery product includes loose items disposed within the receptacle and in direct contact with the receptacle ,and wherein the loose items are in direct contact with one another (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
293
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LORENZEN does not disclose, the receptacle defines a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle.
Brauner discloses a receptacle (Fig. 1-4) that defines a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle as taught by Brauner for the purpose of improving lateral stacking.
With regards to the limitation of the bowl being rounded, while LORENZEN does not explicitly discloses the shape to be rounded ; Brauner discloses the bowl to be rounded (Col. 6; line 43-45 “While shown as rectangular, the lid and tray of FIGS. 1 to 4 may be round, oval”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the bowl to be rounded/oval as taught by Brauner, as it merely requires a change in shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04(I)
However, LORENZEN does not disclose a shipping label disposed on the body.
Leifer is relevant to this issue and discloses a package that include areas on its exterior surface for placement of shipping labels/information, etc. (Para 4).
LORENZEN, and Leifer are all from the art of containers with outside and inside surfaces with the ability to have labels or markings. See MPEP 2141.01 (a)(IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate a shipping label disposed on the body as taught by Leifer for the purpose of allowing shipping of the box.
However, LORENZEN does not explicitly disclose, a central wall that divides the receptacle into a first sub-receptacle that houses the first flavor of SIOC confectionery product and a second sub-receptacle that houses the second flavor of SIOC confectionery product. LORENZEN disclose a panel (17) that is in between two rows of product.
Morgan disclose a container wherein a central wall (30; fig. 8) is placed and divides the interior into a first and second sub receptacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have a central wall as taught by Morgan as this would provide support to both sides of the receptacle equally.
With regards to the shipping container being reversible, while Lorenzen as modified fails to disclose this limitation, Turnbull discloses shipping container to be reversible; as such It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lorenzen to make the container reversible as taught by Turnbull as it would allow display of different information/indicia depending on the orientation of the container.
As a result of such modification, LORENZEN as modified would have container body and lid that are reversible.
The limitation “the shipping label providing shipping instructions for a package carrier” is considered to be printed matter. See MPEP 2111.05(IB) .
However, LORENZEN does not appear to disclose, the lid to be removable.
Repko discloses a container wherein the lid is removable (Fig. 4; lid 24 cane removed from the package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the lid to be removable as taught by Repko for the purpose of allowing user to access the content without disruption of the lid if desired.
LORENZEN fails to disclose the limitation requiring the lid to be attached to body using one or more removable pressure adhesive, Duner discloses a container wherein the lid is attached to the body via removable pressure sensitive adhesive (para 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the lid be attached to the body via removable pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Duner since such modification would allow for consistent holding on the coated area thereby preventing any unnecessary shifting of the lid panel while also allowing for easy opening and closing of the lid.
As a result of such modification, LORENZEN would have one or more removable pressure adhesive (Duner )configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible shipping container, and a reversible and removable lid enclosing the receptacle, wherein, a reversible and removable lid […] is removable from the reversible body using the one or more reversible pressure adhesive.
Regarding claim 4, LORENZEN as modified discloses, the reversible shipping container is configured to have a shipping configuration (When the box is closed) and a display configuration (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, LORENZEN as modified discloses the first flavor of SIOC confectionery product includes a plurality of individually packaged goods.
Regarding claim 10, LORENZEN as modified discloses a reclose (LORENZEN “side flap 32 releasably engages with body) disposed on one of the reversible and removable lid and the reversible body that releasably engages the other of the reversible and removable lid and the reversible body.
Regarding claim 12, LORENZEN as modified discloses wherein the rounded bowl shape represents an ovular shape (Bruner; Col. 6; line 43-45).
Regarding claim 21, LORENZEN discloses, the shipping container material includes corrugated cardboard (Page 1, ln 90-97).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN-Brauner-Leifer-Morgan-Turnbull- REPKO- Duner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20210224498).
Regarding claim 3, LORENZEN as modified discloses, the receptacle defining the rounded bowl shape is reversible (Turnbull) and has no defined side panel or no defined bottom panel (any side can be considered bottom or side panel) but does not disclose, one or more codes disposed on at least one of the body or the lid.
Lin discloses, a container comprising QR code on the body (Fig. 9; 532).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate , one or more codes disposed on at least one of the body as taught by Lin as this would allow for identification and also allow for it to be programed to display any relevant information.
Additionally, the one or more code is considered printed matter See MPEP 2111.05(IB)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN- Brauner-Leifer-Morgan-Turnbull- REPKO- Duner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fanter (US 3265285).
Regarding claim 11, LORENZEN as modified does not disclose, a permanent coupler as a tamper-evident device.
Fanter disclose, a container comprising a permanent coupler as a tamper-evident device (52; Fig. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate a permanent coupler as a tamper-evident device as taught by Fanter for the purpose of providing security while also improving closure assembly (col. 2, lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN- Brauner-Leifer-Morgan-Turnbull- REPKO- Duner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Booch (US 20130001124).
Regarding claim 22, LORENZEN does not explicitly disclose , an overwrap is applied to an exterior surface of the shipping container to protect the exterior branding.
Booch is in the field of endeavor and discloses a container having shrink wrap applied to the container (Para 93 “the package 10 is wrapped either partially or completely in a plastic film or a plastic bag.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate shrink wrap all over the container as taught by Booch in order to protect the exterior from outside dust.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN- Brauner-Leifer-Morgan-Turnbull- REPKO- Duner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chevalier (US 4823954).
Regarding claim 25, LORENZEN does not explicitly disclose, the receptacle includes one or more undulating edges.
Chevalier disclose a package made of undulated cardboard and as such It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to make the package from undulated cardboard as it is well known material for shipping package as well as a strong and cheap material for shipping containers.
Claim(s) 26-28, 31, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN (US 1916227) in view of Brauner (US 4472896), Turnbull (US 3355087), REPKO (US 3372802) and Duner (US 20120305433).
Regarding claim 26, LORENZEN disclose, A shipping container (See annotated fig. below) comprising: a body defining a receptacle (See annotated fig. below), the body formed of a shipping container material (Page 1; lines 55-57 “The individual packages 10 are carried in the surrounding carton 13 (which may advantageously be made of cardboard”); a lid (See annotated fig. below) enclosing the receptacle, the lid formed of the shipping container material; at least one decorative surface ornamentation disposed on at least one of the body or the lid (interior branding on lid; See annotated fig below) ; and a ships-in-own-container (SIOC) product disposed within the receptacle (See annotated fig. below), wherein the SIOC product comprises loose items being in direct contact with one another, and wherein the receptacle does not include protective shipping materials.
PNG
media_image2.png
293
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LORENZEN does not disclose, the receptacle defines a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle.
Brauner discloses a receptacle (Fig. 1-4) that defines a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle as taught by Brauner for the purpose of improving lateral stacking.
With regards to the limitation of the bowl being rounded, while LORENZEN does not explicitly discloses the shape to be rounded ; Brauner discloses the bowl to be rounded (Col. 6; line 43-45 “While shown as rectangular, the lid and tray of FIGS. 1 to 4 may be round, oval”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the bowl to be rounded/oval as taught by Brauner, as it merely requires a change in shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
With regards to the shipping container being reversible, while Lorenzen as modified fails to disclose this limitation, Turnbull discloses shipping container to be reversible; as such It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lorenzen to make the container reversible as taught by Turnbull as it would allow display of different information/indicia depending on the orientation of the container.
As a result of such modification, LORENZEN as modified would have container body and lid that are reversible.
However, LORENZEN does not appear to disclose, the lid to be removable.
Repko discloses a container wherein the lid is removable (Fig. 4; lid 24 cane removed from the package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the lid to be removable as taught by Repko for the purpose of allowing user to access the content without disruption of the lid if desired.
LORENZEN fails to disclose the limitation requiring the lid to be attached to body using one or more removable pressure adhesive, Duner discloses a container wherein the lid is attached to the body via removable pressure sensitive adhesive (para 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the lid be attached to the body via removable pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Duner since such modification would allow for consistent holding on the coated area thereby preventing any unnecessary shifting of the lid panel while also allowing for easy opening and closing of the lid.
As a result of such modification, LORENZEN would have one or more removable pressure adhesive (Duner )configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible shipping container, and a reversible and removable lid enclosing the receptacle, wherein, a reversible and removable lid […] is removable from the reversible body using the one or more reversible pressure adhesive.
Regarding claim 27, LORENZEN disclose the shipping container is configured to transition between a shipping configuration (When the lid is closed) and a display configuration (Fig. 1), wherein the display configuration exposes an inner surface of the lid, the receptacle defining the rounded bowl shape is reversible (Turnbull) and has no defined side panel or no defined bottom panel (any side can be considered bottom or side panel).
Regarding claim 28, LORENZEN disclose the SIOC product is unwrapped and in direct contact with the receptacle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, LORENZEN discloses wherein the rounded bowl shape represents an ovular shape (Bruner; Col. 6; line 43-45).
Regarding claim 32, LORENZEN discloses a reclose (Page 2; lines 42-45; “The side flaps 32 of the top may be folded down and tucked inside the sides 33 of the carton.”) disposed on one of the lid and the body that releasably engages the other of the lid and the body.
Regarding claim 33, LORENZEN discloses, A shipping container (See annotated fig. below) comprising: a body defining a receptacle (See annotated fig. below); a lid (See annotated fig. below) enclosing the receptacle; at least one decorative surface ornamentation disposed on at least one of the body or the lid (exterior branding disposed on an exterior surface of the lid; interior branding disposed on an interior surface of the lid(interior branding on lid; See annotated fig below); and a ships-in-own-container (SIOC) product disposed within the receptacle (See annotated fig. below) wherein the SIOC product does not include secondary packaging, the SIOC product comprises loose items being in direct contact with one another, and the receptacle does not include protective shipping materials.
PNG
media_image3.png
293
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LORENZEN does not disclose, the receptacle defines a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle.
Brauner discloses a receptacle (Fig. 1-4) that defines a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate a bowl shape having a horizontal cross-sectional area that decreases from a top opening of the receptacle to a bottom of the receptacle as taught by Brauner for the purpose of improving lateral stacking.
With regards to the limitation of the bowl being rounded, while LORENZEN does not explicitly discloses the shape to be rounded ; Brauner discloses the bowl to be rounded (Col. 6; line 43-45 “While shown as rectangular, the lid and tray of FIGS. 1 to 4 may be round, oval”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the bowl to be rounded/oval as taught by Brauner, as it merely requires a change in shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
However, LORENZEN does not appear to disclose, the lid to be removable.
Repko discloses a container wherein the lid is removable (Fig. 4; lid 24 cane removed from the package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the lid to be removable as taught by Repko for the purpose of allowing user to access the content without disruption of the lid if desired.
LORENZEN fails to disclose the limitation requiring the lid to be attached to body using one or more removable pressure adhesive, Duner discloses a container wherein the lid is attached to the body via removable pressure sensitive adhesive (para 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the lid be attached to the body via removable pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Duner since such modification would allow for consistent holding on the coated area thereby preventing any unnecessary shifting of the lid panel while also allowing for easy opening and closing of the lid.
As a result of such modification, LORENZEN would have one or more removable pressure adhesive (Duner )configured to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the reversible shipping container, and a reversible and removable lid enclosing the receptacle, wherein, a reversible and removable lid […] is removable from the reversible body using the one or more reversible pressure adhesive.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN- Brauner-Turnbull- REPKO- Duner as applied to claim 26 in view of Kalal (US 4456122).
Regarding claim 29, While LORENZEN as modified does not disclose , the entire SIOC product further disposed within a pouch. Kalal discloses that is it known to put articles to clear bags/packages of polyethylene, as such It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to have the entire SIOC product further disposed within a pouch as taught by Kalal for the purpose of protecting the product from soiling or other damage (Col. 1; lines 28-29).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LORENZEN- Brauner-Turnbull- REPKO- Duner as applied to claim 26 in view of NPL (Alarmy).
Regarding claim 30, LORENZEN discloses the SIOC product to be food product but does not explicitly disclose them to be individually wrapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LORENZEN to incorporate individual wrapping to the SIOC product as taught by Alarmy for the purpose of allowing individual marketing to the product while also keeping the product fresh with the wrap.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument with regards to the usage of removable pressure adhesive is considered but not persuasive as this is known to incorporate removable pressure adhesive to attach lid to body thus assembling and disassembling as taught by newly incorporated prior art of Duner.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights