DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed June 25, 2026. Claims 14-15 were previously withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-17 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected container and method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 8, 2025.
Acknowledgment of applicant’s right to pursue examination of the non-elected claims in continuation or divisional applications is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5439011 A (hereinafter SCHNEIDER) in view of US 20180325166 A1 (hereinafter DELGADO).
Regarding claim 1, SCHNEIDER discloses a filter cigarette (abstract). SCHNEIDER discloses a rod comprising an aerosol-generating substrate (Fig. 1, combination of core 102 and jacket 104, Col. 3, lines 54-65); a filter (Fig. 1, filter core 112, Col 4, lines 1-2) in axial alignment with the rod. SCHNEIDER further discloses a bridging element comprising a first wrapper (Fig. 1, wrapper 115, Col. 4, lines 9-16). As with the instant application, the “bridging element” of SCHNEIDER is the same as the “first wrapper” which is also the same as the “first portion”. Applicant’s embodiment in Fig, 1 makes clear that the bridging element is the first wrapper as the numerals 40 and 42 are identifying the same part. Further applicant’s disclosure the bridging element comprises the first wrapper and nothing more (See PG Pub of instant application US 20230084346 A1, ¶6, ¶14). SCHNEIDER discloses the first wrapper circumscribing the rod and the filter and securing the filter to the rod. SCHNEIDER discloses that the wrapper 115 serves to connect the rod and the filter element and referred to as tipping paper or connecting sheets (Col 4, lines 9-16). SCHNEIDER further discloses a cavity (Fig. 1, mixing zone 120, Col. 4, lines 36-39) located between the rod and the filter. SCHNEIDER further discloses the cavity being partially delimited by the inner surface of the first wrapper in a first portion of the bridging element. The prior art is read to be consistent with applicant’s specification, and applicant identifies that the bridging portion, the first wrapper, and the first portion are all the same element (¶6, ¶14).
SCHNEIDER further teaches the first portion of the bridging element extends a distance of between 4 millimetres and 10 millimetres along the length of the bridging element.
SCHNEIDER teaches an embodiment where the mixing zone can be enlarged or diminished making it possible for the smoker to adjust the desired smoke admixture ratio (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 54-65). SCHNEIDER teaches that this will adapt the flavor impression to the smoker’s wishes (Col. 3, lines 19-25). SCHNEIDER teaches that the value lengths of the cavity and therefore the lengths of the portions needs to be optimized to customize admixture. As seen in Fig. 3, the length of the cavity affects admixture and as such length of the extension of the first portion of the bridging element over the cavity and smoking article is a result dependent variable in that changing the value changes the function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the range as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously change the length of the bridging element to optimize the admixture.
A change in size, in this case choosing the length of a wrapper and cavity, is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
SCHNEIDER does not disclose the first portion of the bridging element has a thickness of between 50 micrometres and 140 micrometres.
DELGADO teaches a smoking article with a tobacco rod and a filter wrapped with one or more filter wrapper and a tipping material attaching the tobacco rod to the filter. DELGADO teaches that the thickness of the tipping material is between 40 to 55 microns (i.e. micrometers). (¶16). DELGADO teaches that thick wrappers are preferred to provide a proper roundness of the filter in the finished smoking article (¶20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SCHNEIDER to provide the first portion of the bridging element has a thickness of between 50 micrometres and 140 micrometres as taught in DELGADO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a thick tipping paper because doing so would provide proper roundness to the finished smoking article (DELGADO ¶20). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER does not disclose the first portion of bridging element has a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter or greater nor the first portion of the bridging element has a basis weight of 50 grams per square meter or greater.
DELGADO teaches a smoking article with a tobacco rod and a filter wrapped with one or more filter wrapper and a tipping material attaching the tobacco rod to the filter. DELGADO teaches that the basis weight of the tipping material at least 50 grams per square meter or more. (¶54, Claim 5). DELGADO teaches that thick wrappers are preferred to provide a proper roundness of the filter in the finished smoking article (¶20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SCHNEIDER to provide the first portion of bridging element has a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter or greater or the first portion of the bridging element has a basis weight of 50 grams per square meter or greater as taught in DELGADO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a thick tipping paper with a basis weight of greater than 70 because doing so would provide proper roundness to the finished smoking article (DELGADO ¶20). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The disclosure of DELGADO to provide a basis weight of at least 50 grams includes all basis weight about 50, including 70 and above as recited in the claim of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further discloses an upstream end of the cavity is delimited by the rod and a downstream end of the cavity is delimited by the filter. This is shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further teaches the first portion of the bridging element extends along the length of the bridging element by a distance of at least 1.2 times the length of the cavity. SCHNEIDER teaches an embodiment where the mixing zone can be enlarged or diminished making it possible for the smoker to adjust the desired smoke admixture ratio (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 54-65). SCHNEIDER teaches that this will adapt the flavor impression to the smoker’s wishes (Col. 3, lines 19-25). Where the cavity is decreased the first portion of the bridging element will extend a greater length than 1.2 times. SCHNEIDER discloses that the value lengths of the cavity and therefore the lengths of the portions needs to be optimized to customize admixture. As seen in Fig. 3, the length of the cavity affects admixture and as such length of the extension of the first portion of the bridging element over the cavity and smoking article is a result dependent variable in that changing the value changes the function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the range as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously change the length of the bridging element to optimize the admixture.
A change in size, in this case choosing the length of a wrapper and cavity, is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further discloses the filter is circumscribed by the first portion of the bridging element (Fig. 1). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the instant application discloses embodiments where the entire bridging element is indeed the first portion (see ¶14). Therefore SCHNEIDER discloses the filter is circumscribed by the first portion.
Regarding claim 9, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further discloses the rod is circumscribed by the first portion of the bridging element (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the rod is circumscribed, at least in part, by the wrapper 115 to join the filter to the rod.
Regarding claim 10, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further discloses the bridging element comprises a single wrapper (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER and DELGADO as applied to claims 1-10 above and WO 2019105950 (hereinafter JORDIL) equivalent US 20200281260 relied upon. JORDIL was made of record in the final rejection mailed June 10, 2025.
Regarding claim 2, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER does not disclose the cavity has a length of at least 2 millimetres.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol generating article with an aerosol generating substrate and a mouthpiece that includes an upstream cavity that is unfilled (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the upstream cavity has a length of at least 3 millimeters and less than 30 millimeters (¶15). JORDIL teaches that the cavity allows the aerosol to cool allowing for removal of moisture content of the aerosol (¶12). JORDIL further discloses that the cavity length is chosen to retain the structural integrity of the mouthpiece to be a length of between 5 and 7 mm (¶15). JORDIL teaches broadly that filter cigarettes are joined by a band of tipping paper (¶2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SCHNEIDER to provide the cavity has a length of at least 2 millimetres as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously modify the length of the cavity to greater than 5 millimeters. Doing so would provide distance and time for the aerosol generated to cool along the length of the filter thereby reducing the moisture content and improving taste (JORDIL ¶12). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further discloses the inner surface of the first wrapper in the first portion of the bridging element extends circumferentially around the cavity by a distance of greater than 5 millimetres .
JORDIL teaches an aerosol generating article with an aerosol generating substrate and a mouthpiece that includes an upstream cavity that is unfilled (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the upstream cavity has a length of at least 3 millimeters and less than 30 millimeters (¶15). JORDIL teaches that the article may have a diameter of between 4 millimeters and 9 millimeters (¶71). JORDIL teaches that the cavity allows the aerosol to cool allowing for removal of moisture content of the aerosol (¶12). JORDIL further discloses that the cavity length is chosen to retain the structural integrity of the mouthpiece to be a length of between 5 and 7 mm (¶15). JORDIL teaches broadly that filter cigarettes are joined by a band of tipping paper (¶2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SCHNEIDER to provide the inner surface of the first wrapper in the first portion of the bridging element extends circumferentially around the cavity by a distance of greater than 5 millimetres as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a circumference of greater than 5 millimeters. Doing so would provide distance and time for the aerosol generated to cool along the length of the filter thereby reducing the moisture content and improving taste (¶71, ¶12). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER further discloses the inner surface of the first wrapper in the first portion of the bridging element has a surface area of greater than 25 millimetres squared.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol generating article with an aerosol generating substrate and a mouthpiece that includes an upstream cavity that is unfilled (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the upstream cavity has a length of at least 3 millimeters and less than 30 millimeters (¶15). JORDIL teaches that the article may have a diameter of between 4 millimeters and 9 millimeters (¶71). Therefore the inner surface area of the cavity is equal to the length x width of the rectangle of the flattened wrapper. So solving for the smallest surface area is 3 mm x 4 mm = 12 mm2. The largest surface area is 30 mm x 9 mm = 120 mm2. Therefore the range of inner surface areas is greater than the recited millimetres squared. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further a change in size, in this case choosing wherein the inner surface of the first wrapper in the first portion of the bridging element has a surface area of greater than 25 millimetres squared is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER and DELGADO as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above and in further view of US 20100108081 A1 (hereinafter BLEVINS).
Regarding claim 11, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER does not disclose the bridging element comprises a second wrapper circumscribing the first wrapper.
SCHNEIDER teaches an embodiment where there is an additional wrapper that circumscribes the first wrapper (Fig. 4, air-impermeable wrapper 515, Col. 6, lines 20-23). SCHNEIDER teaches that this second wrapper, like the first wrapper, connects the filter to the rod.
BLEVINS teaches a filtered cigarette with a smokable rod and a filter material secured together with a tipping material (abstract). BLEVINS teaches and embodiments where the first tipping material 208 is circumscribed by a second tipping material 250 (Fig. 3, ¶44). BLEVINS teaches that both tipping material secure the filter to the rod (¶44). BLEVINS teaches that the outer layer, second tipping material 250, further improves the physical integrity of the cigarette and can be used for printing indicia on the cigarette (¶6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SCHENIDER provide the bridging element comprises a second wrapper circumscribing the first wrapper as taught in BLEVINS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a second wrapper. Doing so would improved the structural integrity of the cigarette and provide a surface for applying indicia (BLEVINS ¶6).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER and DELGADO as applied to claims 1-10 above and in further view of US 20180000153 A1 (hereinafter ZHOU).
Regarding claim 16, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER does not disclose the bridging element extends along the entire length of the rod.
ZHOU teaches a mouthpiece for a smoking device (abstract). ZHOU teaches a multisegmented mouthpiece as shown in Fig. 1B comprising a shaped element 1, a segment 2 that maybe an empty cavity, a filter 3, and a tobacco column 4 (¶60). ZHOU teaches that these segments are joined with a wrapper 5 that is engages around the entire outer surface of the cigarette (¶62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SCHNEIDER to provide the bridging element extends along the entire length of the rod as taught in ZHOU. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously extend the wrapper the entire length of the rod/cigarette. Doing so would secure the segments (ZHOU ¶62).
Regarding claim 17, modified SCHNEIDER discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 1 as discussed above. SCHNEIDER does not disclose the first portion of the bridging element extends along the entire length of the rod but is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 25, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3-12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “The Office Action further states that "applicant identifies that the bridging portion, the first wrapper, and the first portion are all the same element ( 6, 14)." See Office Action, page 3. The Office Action states that Applicant identifies the "bridging element," "first wrapper," and "first portion" as the same element. Applicant respectfully disagrees with that reading. The specification as filed on page 3 describes that "[t]he first portion of the bridging element is a portion having a basis weight of 50 grams per square meter or greater," and further states that, in some embodiments, the bridging element "may comprise a first wrapper", and a portion of the first wrapper "may correspond to the first portion of the wrapper." Thus, the specification identifies the first portion as a portion or region of the bridging element/first wrapper, not necessarily the entirety of the bridging element or first wrapper.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., portions with varying thicknesses) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner has made a reasonable interpretation of the instant application in light of the filed specification. Applicant has argued that the specification saying “may” somehow invalidates the interpretation. However, applicant has expressly disclosed that the bridging element is the first wrapper as the numerals 40 and 42 are identifying the same part. Further applicant’s disclosure the bridging element comprises the first wrapper and nothing more (See PG Pub of instant application US 20230084346 A1, ¶6, ¶14). Claim 1 merely requires a single wrapper with a thickness and does not require different thicknesses for different portions.
Applicant argues, “Schneider does not teach or suggest that wrapper 115, or any first portion thereof, extends a distance of between 4 millimetres and 10 millimetres along the length of the bridging element. While Schneider discloses that "the smoke mixing zone 420 [is] correspondingly enlarged or diminished," smoke mixing zone 420 is not the claimed first portion of the bridging element. Rather, smoke mixing zone 420 corresponds, at most, to the claimed cavity. Accordingly, Schneider's disclosure concerning the smoke mixing zone does not disclose the claimed 4 millimetres to 10 millimetres axial extension distance of the first portion of the bridging element. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Schneider does not teach or suggest "wherein the first portion of the bridging element extends a distance of between 4 millimetres and 10 millimetres along the length of the bridging element" as recited in claim 1 as amended herein.”
As explained above, finding workable ranges where prior art, here SCHNEIDER, is silent as to the specific dimensions is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of SCHNEIDER to have the first portion of the bridging element extends a distance of between 4 millimetres and 10 millimetres along the length of the bridging element since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of SCHNEIDER would not operate differently with the claimed values and SCHNEIDER teaches an embodiment where the mixing zone can be enlarged or diminished making it possible for the smoker to adjust the desired smoke admixture ratio (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 54-65). SCHNEIDER teaches that this will adapt the flavor impression to the smoker’s wishes (Col. 3, lines 19-25). SCHNEIDER teaches that the value lengths of the cavity and therefore the lengths of the portions needs to be optimized to customize admixture. Therefore, SCHEIDER would function appropriately with the claimed values. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the value “may” be within the claimed ranges (See PG Pub of instant application US 20230084346 A1, ¶24).
Applicant argues, “Schneider's disclosure of adjusting the smoke mixing zone does not establish that the claimed first-portion extension distance is a result-effective variable The Office Action further appears to rely on a routine-optimization rationale, asserting that the length of the extension of the first portion of the bridging element is a result-dependent variable because Schneider teaches that the smoke mixing zone may be enlarged or diminished to adjust the smoke admixture ratio… Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific structural limitation directed to the axial extension distance of the first portion of the bridging element, namely that the first portion extends between 4 mm and 10 mm along the length of the bridging element. As discussed above, the first portion of the bridging element is distinct from the smoke mixing zone/cavity. Thus, Schneider's disclosure regarding the size of the smoke mixing zone does not provide a teaching or reason to select the claimed 4 mm to 10 mm extension distance for the first portion of wrapper 115….The Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Schneider of a first portion of wrapper 115 having the claimed extension distance, and does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected that specific distance.”
SCHNEIDER does teach that changing the lengths of the wrapper is a results effective variable. SCHNEIDER teaches that this will adapt the flavor impression to the smoker’s wishes (Col. 3, lines 19-25). SCHNEIDER teaches that the value lengths of the cavity and therefore the lengths of the portions needs to be optimized to customize admixture. Applicant’s argument here only strengthens the office’s position. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to change the length of the wrapper to influence taste to the user. There is nothing to suggest that a length of the first portion (which given applicant’s disclosure is a rather arbitrarily set bound and where the “portions” of the same physical sheet can be set nearly anywhere) being between 4 mm to 10 mm is within the selection of the person of ordinary skill in the art and would be done with expected results to adapt the flavor impression to the smoker’s wishes.
Applicant argues, “The claimed limitation is not merely an arbitrary change in size of Schneider's smoke mixing zone. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific structural limitation directed to the axial extension distance of the first portion of the bridging element, namely that the first portion extends between 4 mm and 10 mm along the length of the bridging element. As discussed above, the first portion of the bridging element is distinct from the smoke mixing zone/cavity. Thus, Schneider's disclosure regarding the size of the smoke mixing zone does not provide a teaching or reason to select the claimed 4 mm to 10 mm extension distance for the first portion of wrapper 115.” Schneider teaches that the length of the smoking chamber is adjusted based on taste. Therefore the length of the chamber is not arbitrary, but rather a distance to be purposefully adjusted to result in a desired taste provided to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust this length with predictable results including in the range of the instant application when considering the standard length of cigarettes and filter portions. Further, applicant’s own specification says the first portion “may” be within the range provided. Therefore applicant does not this is not a special characteristic and changes in size are well within the engineering judgment of one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights