DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 10-20 have been withdrawn and claims 1-9 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
New Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejections are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20150047718) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022) in view of Morham et al. (US 20180010288) (cited but not relied upon in the Office Action dated 08/06/2025) and Hirokazu (WO 2004035904) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches an antimicrobial treatment system (Fig. 1, system 5 [0017]) comprising:
a water supply configured to provide water to an output of the water supply (Fig. 1, water source 12, [0017]);
a first flow controller connected to the output of the water supply (Fig. 1, flow controller 18, [0017]);
a metallic ion cartridge configured to provide a metallic ion concentrate to an output of the metallic ion cartridge (Fig. 1, metal ion supply 22, [0017]);
a dilution reservoir connected to the first flow controller (Fig. 1, dilution reservoir 10, [0176]),
wherein the dilution reservoir is configured to combine the water, and the metallic ion concentrate into a diluted solution (reservoir 10 combines water and concentration to form diluted solution [0017]);
a second flow controller connected to an output of the dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, pump 26 understood to be a flow controller connected to dilution reservoir [0017]), wherein the second flow controller provides the diluted solution to at least one application system (pump 26 also connected to manifold 28 to provide diluted solution to washer extractors; Fig. 2, 324a-324d [0025] = an application system); and
an electronics control module connected to the first flow controller and the second flow controller (Fig. 1, electronics module 20 connected to first flow controller 18, dosing pump 26, and second flow controller 28 [0017]).
Brown teaches wherein the metallic ion supply (Fig. 2, 22) contains a cannister (Fig. 2, 208) with a nylon cloth coated with metallic silver [0022] (which is understood to be a solid source of metallic ion) and a second flow controller (Fig. 2, 24) that releases a metallic ion concentrate into the bulk reservoir for dilution, wherein the second flow controller is a switch [0017].
Brown does not teach wherein the metallic ion cartridge comprises a liquid metallic ion concentrate solution, wherein the metallic ion cartridge is configured to provide the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution to an output of the metallic ion cartridge, a dosing pump to dispense the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution and connected to the output of the metallic ion cartridge, and wherein the dilution reservoir is configured to combine the water and the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution into a dilute solution. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with effectively controlling the flow rate and dose of metallic ions provided to the dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, 10), motivating one to turn towards Morham.
Morham teaches an antimicrobial supply system (Fig. 1, 10) with a metallic ion supply system (Fig. 1, 22, [abstract]) that provides concentrated metal ions to a dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, 14, [0029]). Morham teaches wherein the metallic ion supply may be a metallic silver concentrate solution [0030-0034] and wherein the concentrate solution may be delivered to the dilution reservoir via a precision metering pump (Fig. 2A, 72, [0034], [0038]) where it is combined with water into a dilute solution [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the solid metal ion concentrate supply as taught by Brown with the liquid metallic ion concentrate supply and precision metering pump coupled to a dilution reservoir as taught by Morham since Morham teaches the metering pump to deliver a consistent dose of metal ion concentrate solution to the dilution reservoir ([0034],[0038]) and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Further, Modified Brown does not teach wherein the antimicrobial system is portable
Hirokazu teaches an antibacterial treatment device (page 2, para 1) wherein an embodiment of the device is portable and capable of being used in outdoor settings (page 19, para 6).
Hirokazu and Modified Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the antimicrobial device as taught by Modified Brown portable as taught by Hirokazu to enable the device to be used in outdoor activities (page 19, para 6) and because making a device portable has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Brown teaches the portable antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1, further comprising a pressure sensor connected to the electronics control module, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure a pressure of the water (Brown, Fig. 2, water pressure sensor 222 connected to electronic control module, [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Brown teaches the portable antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1, further comprising a conductivity sensor connected to the electronics control module, wherein the conductivity sensor is configured to measure a conductivity of the diluted solution (Brown, conductivity probe 318 connected to the electronic control module and configured to measure conductivity in reservoir 10, [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Brown teaches the portable antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1, wherein the at least one application system comprises at least one textile treatment system (Brown, application system is a washer for a commercial washing facility, understood to be a laundry/textile system [0017, 0025 0029].
Claim(s) 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20150047718) in view of Morham et al. (US 20180010288) and Hirokazu (WO 2004035904), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jha (US 20150027890) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Brown teaches a plurality of sensors connected to the electronic control module 20 for measure water properties [Brown, 0018-0020] but does not teach a water quality sensor.
Jha teaches a water treatment system [abstract] comprising a water quality sensor 29c configured to measure a quality of the water in a storage system, such as conductivity [0078, 0080], available for a product stream 23.
Jha and Modified Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention since all are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems for water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treatment system as taught by Brown to include the water quality sensor as taught by Jha to measure the quality of the water entering the system [0080] prior to treatment to determine the efficacy of the antimicrobial system and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Brown teaches the antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1 wherein the metallic ion cartridge comprises a concentration probe that measure the ion concentration in the reservoir [Brown, 0024] but does not teach a radio frequency identification tag indicating an amount of the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution.
Jha teaches a water treatment system [abstract] comprising a radio frequency identification sensor configured to measure a property of the water or an operating condition of the treatment system (understood to include concentration and conductivity) and can transmit information to a system processor to provide real-time detection of water properties and other conditions of interests, such as concentration of metal ions (i.e. conductivity) [0061-0062].
Jha and Modified Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention since all are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems for water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treatment system and electronic control module as taught by Brown with the RFID sensor as taught by Jha to indicate an concentration of metal ion concentrate in the cartridge since Jha teaches the sensor to provide real-time detection of water properties and other conditions of interests, such as concentration of metal ions (i.e. conductivity) in a given volume [0061-0062] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Brown teaches the portable antimicrobial treatment system of claim 8, wherein the electronics control module is in communication with the RFID tag and is configured to update the indicated amount of the liquid metallic ion concentrate after the metallic ion cartridge provides the concentrate (Jha, RFID sensor in communication with system processor for providing real-time process parameters [0061-0062] = understood to continuously update amount of liquid metallic ion concentrate).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20150047718) in view of Morham et al. (US 20180010288) and Hirokazu (WO 2004035904), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Mascio (US 20160029639).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Brown teaches portable antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1, including a flow sensor (Brown, Fig. 2, flow sensor 229 connected to electronic control module for measuring flowrate of the water, [0018-0020]) but does not teach wherein the flow sensor is a rotameter.
DiMascio teaches methods and apparatuses for generating biocides [abstract] surface and water treatment [0015] comprising a monitoring system with a flow meter to quantify a water flowrate, wherein the flow meter can be a rotameter [0068].
DiMascio and Modified Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention since all are drawn to water treatment apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flowmeter as taught by Brown with the rotameter as taught by DiMascio since DiMascio teaches the rotameter to determine a flowrate of water within a water treatment system [0068], which is equivalent to the intended use of the flow sensor as taught by Brown, and the substitution of equivalents for the same purpose (measure the flowrate of fluid) has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20150047718) in view of Morham et al. (US 20180010288) and Hirokazu (WO 2004035904), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herdt (US 20120000488) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Brown teaches the antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1 wherein the application system is a washer for a textile system (Fig. 2, washers 324a-324d [0025, 0029]) but does not teach wherein at least one application system comprises at least one food product treatment system.
Herdt teaches an antimicrobial treatment control system for treating water with metal ions [abstract, 0014] wherein an application includes at least one food product treatment system [0054].
Herdt and Modified Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to water treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the antimicrobial treatment system as taught by Brown to a food product treatment system as taught by Herdt since Herdt teaches contacting a metal ion-concentrated solution with a surface or water needing treatment [abstract, 0053] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11618696 (hereinafter Patent ‘696) in view of Brown (US 20150047718) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022), Morham et al. (US 20180010288) (cited but not relied upon in the Office Action dated 08/06/2025), and Hirokazu (WO 2004035904) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Patent ‘696 teaches an antimicrobial treatment system (col 6, lines 60-64) comprising:
a water supply configured to provide water to an output of the water supply (diluent supply understood to be a water supply, col 7, lines 1-4);
a first flow controller connected to the output of the water supply (col 7, lines 9-12;
a metallic ion cartridge configured to provide a metallic ion concentrate to an output of the metallic ion cartridge (col 6, lines 65-67, metallic antimicrobial agent supply understood to be metallic ion cartridge);
a dilution reservoir connected to the first flow controller, wherein the dilution reservoir is configured to combine the water, and the metallic ion concentrate into a diluted solution (col 7, lines 1-6);
a second flow controller connected to an output of the dilution reservoir (col 7, lines 11-13),
an electronics control module connected to the first flow controller, and the second flow controller (col 7, lines 9-13).
Patent ‘696 does not teach a dosing pump to dispense the metallic ion concentrate and connected to the output of the metallic ion cartridge, wherein the dilution reservoir is connected to the output of the dosing pump, wherein the electronics control module is connected to the dosing pump, and wherein the second flow controller provides the diluted solution to at least one application system.
Brown teaches an antimicrobial treatment system (Fig. 1, system 5 [0017]) comprising: a dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, dilution reservoir 10, [0176]), a flow controller connected to an output of the dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, pump 26 understood to be a flow controller connected to dilution reservoir [0017]), wherein the flow controller provides the diluted solution to at least one application system (pump 26 also connected to manifold 28 to provide diluted solution to washer extractors; Fig. 2, 324a-324d [0025] = an application system); and an electronics control module connected to said flow controller (24) [0017].
Brown and Patent ‘696 are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antimicrobial system as taught by Patent ‘696 with the flow controller and electronic control module as taught by Brown to provide a controllable fluidic connection between the dilution reservoir and the metallic ion cartridge and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Patent ‘696 does not teach wherein the metallic ion cartridge comprises a liquid metallic ion concentrate solution, wherein the metallic ion cartridge is configured to provide the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution to an output of the metallic ion cartridge, a dosing pump to dispense the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution and connected to the output of the metallic ion cartridge, and wherein the dilution reservoir is configured to combine the water and the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution into a dilute solution. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with effectively controlling the flow rate and dose of metallic ions provided to the dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, 10), motivating one to turn towards Morham.
Morham teaches an antimicrobial supply system (Fig. 1, 10) with a metallic ion supply system (Fig. 1, 22, [abstract]) that provides concentrated metal ions to a dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, 14, [0029]). Morham teaches wherein the metallic ion supply may be a metallic silver concentrate solution [0030-0034] and wherein the concentrate solution may be delivered to the dilution reservoir via a precision metering pump (Fig. 2A, 72, [0034], [0038]) where it is combined with water into a dilute solution [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the solid metal ion concentrate supply as taught by Brown with the liquid metallic ion concentrate supply and precision metering pump coupled to a dilution reservoir as taught by Morham since Morham teaches the metering pump to deliver a consistent dose of metal ion concentrate solution to the dilution reservoir ([0034],[0038]) and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Modified Patent ‘696 does not teach wherein the antimicrobial system is portable.
Hirokazu teaches an antibacterial treatment device (page 2, para 1) wherein an embodiment of the device is portable and capable of being used in outdoor settings (page 19, para 6).
Hirokazu and Modified Patent ‘696 are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the antimicrobial device as taught by Modified Patent ‘696 portable as taught by Hirokazu to enable the device to be used in outdoor activities (page 19, para 6) and because making a device portable has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(A).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10640403 (hereinafter Patent ‘403) in view of Brown (US 20150047718) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022), Morham et al. (US 20180010288) (cited but not relied upon in the Office Action dated 08/06/2025), and Hirokazu (WO 2004035904) (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/18/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Patent ‘403 teaches an antimicrobial treatment system (col 6, lines 59) comprising:
a water supply configured to provide water to an output of the water supply (col 6, lines 66-67, col 7, lines 1-4);
a first flow controller connected to the output of the water supply (col 7, lines 10-14);
metallic ion cartridge configured to provide an ion concentrate to an output of the metallic ion cartridge (col 6, lines 60-62);
a dilution reservoir connected to the first flow controller, wherein the dilution reservoir is configured to combine the water and the ion concentrate into a diluted solution (col 6, lines 63-67, col 7, lines 1-4);
a second flow controller connected to an output of the dilution reservoir (col 7, lines 10-14),
wherein the second flow controller provides the diluted solution to at least one application system (col 7, lines 8-14, second flow controller understood to connect to output of dilution reservoir and washing system); and
an electronics control module connected to the first flow controller, and the second flow controller (col 7, lines 10-14).
Patent ‘403 does not teach a dosing pump to dispense the metallic ion concentrate and connected to the output of the metallic ion cartridge, and wherein the electronics control module is connected to the dosing pump.
Brown teaches an antimicrobial treatment system (Fig. 1, system 5 [0017]) comprising: a dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, dilution reservoir 10, [0176]) and an electronics control module connected to said flow controller (24) [0017].
Brown and Patent ‘403 are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antimicrobial system as taught by Patent ‘403 with the electronic control module as taught by Brown to provide a controllable fluidic connection between the dilution reservoir and the metallic ion cartridge and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Patent ‘403 does not teach wherein the metallic ion cartridge comprising a liquid metallic ion concentrate solution, wherein the metallic ion cartridge is configured to provide the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution to an output of the metallic ion cartridge, a dosing pump to dispense the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution and connected to the output of the metallic ion cartridge, and wherein the dilution reservoir is configured to combine the water and the liquid metallic ion concentrate solution into a dilute solution. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with effectively controlling the flow rate and dose of metallic ions provided to the dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, 10), motivating one to turn towards Morham.
Morham teaches an antimicrobial supply system (Fig. 1, 10) with a metallic ion supply system (Fig. 1, 22, [abstract]) that provides concentrated metal ions to a dilution reservoir (Fig. 1, 14, [0029]). Morham teaches wherein the metallic ion supply may be a metallic silver concentrate solution [0030-0034] and wherein the concentrate solution may be delivered to the dilution reservoir via a precision metering pump (Fig. 2A, 72, [0034], [0038]) where it is combined with water into a dilute solution [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the solid metal ion concentrate supply as taught by Brown with the liquid metallic ion concentrate supply and precision metering pump coupled to a dilution reservoir as taught by Morham since Morham teaches the metering pump to deliver a consistent dose of metal ion concentrate solution to the dilution reservoir ([0034],[0038]) and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Modified Patent ‘403 does not teach wherein the antimicrobial system is portable.
Hirokazu teaches an antibacterial treatment device (page 2, para 1) wherein an embodiment of the device is portable and capable of being used in outdoor settings (page 19, para 6).
Hirokazu and Modified Patent ‘403 are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to antimicrobial treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the antimicrobial device as taught by Modified Patent ‘403 portable as taught by Hirokazu to enable the device to be used in outdoor activities (page 19, para 6) and because making a device portable has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Patent ‘403 teaches the portable antimicrobial treatment system of claim 1, further comprising a pressure sensor connected to the electronics control module, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure a pressure of the water (‘403, col 7, lines 31-36, col 8, lines 1-2).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the amendment, filed 12/08/2025, the Applicant argues that Brown teaches a solid source of metallic ion and does not teach a liquid metallic ion concentrate solution with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Morham et al. (US 20180010288), which was cited but not relied upon in the previous Office Action.
In the arguments presented on pages 8-9 of the amendment, filed 12/08/2025, the Applicant argues that Brown does not teach a dosing pump to dispense a metallic ion concentrate with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Morham et al. (US 20180010288), which was cited but not relied upon in the previous Office Action.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-10 of the amendment, filed 12/08/2025, the Applicant argues that none of Hirokazu, Jha, DiMascio, or Herdt teach a metal ion cartridge that includes a liquid metallic ion concentrate solution of a pump to provide that solution to a dilution reservoir with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Morham et al. (US 20180010288), which was cited but not relied upon in the previous Office Action.
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 NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758