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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant' s arguments, filed 10/02/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 9-20 continue to be cancelled per applicant's election of restriction requirement filed on 06/04/2025.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 10/02/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-8 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a urine color and concentration assessment system (all-in-one specimen cup 100 [0032]; fig 1A) comprising:
a housing (a lid portion 105 [0032]; fig 1A);
a color chart supported by the housing (a color reference chart 130 is shown as also being affixed to the flat side 120 [0034]; fig 1A);
and a urine collection container supported by the housing and positioned adjacent the color chart, the urine collection container configured to receive a urine sample for comparing a color of the urine sample to a color of the color chart (container portion 110 may be any size or shape capable of receiving biological samples [0032]; having the patient provide a urine specimen into a container portion (e.g., portion 110) [0050]),
wherein the housing includes a first portion defining an aperture extending along an axis (the lid portion 105 is configured with a lip 160 [0040]; fig 1D), a second portion spaced apart from the first portion (a flat side 120 of the lid portion 105 of the cup 100 [0033]; fig 1D), and an opening positioned between the first portion and the second portion (the opening 165… As shown, the collecting ledge 175 is coupled to the flat side 120 of the lid portion 105. The collecting ledge 175 begins at an area adjacent to the test strip 125 along an inner surface of the flat side 120, and extends in a sloping manner radially inward to at least partially cover (extend across) the opening 165. [0043]; fig 1G), the urine collection container being removably received within the aperture along the axis and at least partially positioned within the opening (With reference first to FIG. 1D, the lid portion 105 is configured with a lip 160 to form a liquid-tight seal with a container portion (e.g., container portion 110) of the cup 100… a base of the lid portion 105 is equipped with an opening 165 to allow a collected specimen to pass from the container portion into the lid portion 105 when the cup 100 is turned upside down, such as was shown in FIGS. 1A-1B above [0040]), and wherein the color chart is supported by the housing adjacent to the opening such that the urine sample contained within the urine collection container is positioned within the opening adjacent to the color chart for comparison to the color chart (The collecting ledge 175 begins at an area adjacent to the test strip 125 along an inner surface of the flat side 120, and extends in a sloping manner radially inward to at least partially cover (extend across) the opening 165. In this fashion, when the lid portion 105 is secured to a container portion (not shown) and is turned upside down, a collected specimen in the container portion will pass through the opening 165 under the force of gravity and immediately impact the collecting ledge 175, which will in turn divert the specimen outwardly along its length and towards the test strip 125 disposed on the inner surface of the flat side 120, thereby ensuring that the test strip 125 is properly exposed to the specimen. [0043]; a color reference chart 130 is shown as also being affixed to the flat side 120 and adjacent to the test strip 125 [0034]; fig 1G).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses the color chart includes a first color corresponding to a first range of urine specific gravity values (Urinalysis dipsticks, for example, are typically accompanied with a reference color chart for evaluating test pad color changes following exposure to urine [0006]; the dipstick will typically include reagent pads for detecting or measuring… specific gravity [0004]); a second color corresponding to a second range of urine specific gravity values; and a third color corresponding to a third range of urine specific gravity values (identify color matches between the test pads and the corresponding sequences of reference color block [0056]; each of the reference color blocks are associated with a particular test result [0058]; fig 1A).
Chen discloses a color reference chart that can be used to perform color-based testing of biological specimens such as urine [0021]. Chen also discloses colors on the color reference chart are associated with a particular test result [0058] and that specific gravity is measured in urinalysis [0004]. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen such that the color blocks of the color reference chart correspond to a first range, a second range, and a third range of urine specific gravity values.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses the housing includes a recess in the first portion that is coincident with the aperture along the axis (the lid portion 105 is configured with a lip 160 [0040]; fig 1D) and an opening positioned between the recess and the aperture (a base of the lid portion 105 is equipped with an opening 165 [0040]; fig 1D), the urine collection container being seated in the recess when positioned within the opening (the lid portion 105 is configured with a lip 160 to form a liquid-tight seal with a container portion (e.g., container portion 110) of the cup 100 [0040]).
Chen fails to disclose the housing includes a recess in the second portion that is coincident with the aperture along the axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of Chen such that the housing includes a recess in the second portion instead of the first portion because the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baxi et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20160091433 – previously cited) hereinafter Baxi.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Chen fails to disclose the urine color and concentration assessment system further comprising one or more light sources positioned to illuminate the color chart, the urine sample contained within the urine collection container, or both. However, Baxi teaches a sensor apparatus that can “illuminate a color area of the structure that is separable from a housing through an aperture of the housing via one or more light emitters positioned within the housing and facing the structure, and read a color shade of the color area” [0118].
Chen is considered analogous art to the present invention because both inventions are directed towards the same field of endeavor. Baxi is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen such that it includes one or more light sources positioned to illuminate the color chart, a urine sample contained within the urine collection container, or both, as taught by Baxi, because it would help a user read a color block in dim conditions. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzales Quinones et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20120202181 – previously cited) hereinafter Gonzales.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses the housing is configured to allow a user to view the urine sample from at least three sides (fig 1A). Chen fails to explicitly disclose the urine collection container is defined, at least in part, by a transparent material. However, Gonzales teaches a urine collection container is defined, at least in part, by a transparent material (urine container is also preferably made of a transparent flexible plastic sheet material [0084]).
Gonzales is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen such that the urine collection container is defined, at least in part, by a transparent material, as taught by Gonzales, so that a user is able to view the urine sample. Furthermore, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art to have clear, transparent urine collection containers.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drury (US Patent Pub. No. 20180003621 – previously cited) and Canter et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20030170607 of US Patent No. 6750007 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) hereinafter Canter.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Chen fails to disclose a height of the opening is substantially the same as a height of color chart, and wherein the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along the height of the color chart, each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart, and wherein the lightest color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and wherein an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
It is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the claimed height of the opening. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, through routine optimization, to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen such that a height of the opening is substantially the same as a height of color chart. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Drury teaches a color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color (the color scale may progressively change from lighter colors to darker colors within each region 115, 120, 125 to reflect a range of shades of yellow that are within that hydration state; fig 1).
Drury is considered analogous art to the present invention because both inventions are directed towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen such that the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color as taught by Drury. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the claimed the color chart including three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along a height of the color chart and each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, through routine optimization, to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Drury such that the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along a height of the color chart and each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Chen in view of Drury fails to teach the lightest color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and wherein an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
However, Canter teaches a color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017 (specific color corresponding to whether the specific gravity of urine is within the individual ranges of [0011]; less than about 1.015 [0012]), a color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022 (specific color corresponding to whether the specific gravity of urine is within the individual ranges of [0011]; greater than about 1.025 [0014]), and wherein a color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022 (specific color corresponding to whether the specific gravity of urine is within the individual ranges of [0011]; between about 1.015 and about 1.025 [0013]).
Canter is considered analogous art to the present invention because both inventions are directed towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Drury such that the lightest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022, as taught by Canter. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the claimed colors corresponding to urine specific gravity values. The ranges of urine specific gravity values were determined through an experiment. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, through routine optimization, to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Drury such that the lightest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20210053066 – previously cited) hereinafter Chiu.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Chen fails to disclose the housing includes a first bore that has a first axis, a first window or opening positioned in a wall of the first bore, a second bore that defines a second axis, and a second window or opening positioned in a wall of the second bore, the first bore being positioned adjacent to the second bore and the first axis and the second axis being parallel to one another, the first bore configured to removably receive the color chart such that the color chart is viewable through the first window or opening and the second bore configured to removably receive the urine collection container such that the urine collection container is viewable through the second window or opening.
However, Chiu teaches a housing (100) includes a first bore that has a first axis, a first window or opening (1041) positioned in a wall of the first bore, a second bore that defines a second axis, and a second window or opening positioned in a wall of the second bore, the first bore being positioned adjacent to the second bore and the first axis and the second axis being parallel to one another, the first bore configured to removably receive a color chart (1071) such that the color chart is viewable through the first window or opening and the second bore configured to removably receive a collection container (each side wall of the secondary tube insert can comprise notches or dents for structural reinforcement of the secondary tube insert [0018]; 202 side plate/side wall of the secondary tube insert [0057]) such that the collection container is viewable through the second
PNG
media_image1.png
522
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
window or opening (see annotated fig 1 based on fig 2 of Chiu and annotated fig 2 based on fig 3 of Chiu).
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
433
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Pub. No. 20120106811 – previously cited) in view of Chiu (US Patent Pub. No. 20210053066 – previously cited) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Baxi (US Patent Pub. No. 20160091433 – previously cited), Drury (US Patent Pub. No. 20180003621 – previously cited), and Canter (US Patent Pub. No. 20030170607 of US Patent No. 6750007 – cited by Applicant and previously cited).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Chiu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Chen in view of Drury fails to teach an LED is positioned within the housing adjacent to one or both of the color chart and the urine collection container to illuminate one or both of the color chart and the urine collection container; wherein the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along a height of the color chart, each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart, and wherein the lightest color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and wherein an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
However, Baxi teaches teach an LED is positioned within a housing adjacent to one or both of a color chart and a test strip to illuminate one or both of the color chart and the test strip (a pair of emitters (e.g., white LEDs) mounted inside the cone portion may be used to illuminate a surface of a test strip and/or of a color shade chart to read a color shade for each color area [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Chiu such that it includes one or more light sources positioned to illuminate the color chart, a urine sample contained within the urine collection container, or both, as taught by Baxi, because it would help a user read a color block in dim conditions. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Chen in view of Chiu and further in view of Baxi fails to teach the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along a height of the color chart, each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart, and wherein the lightest color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and wherein an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
However, Drury teaches a color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color (the color scale may progressively change from lighter colors to darker colors within each region 115, 120, 125 to reflect a range of shades of yellow that are within that hydration state; fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Chiu and Baxi such that the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color as taught by Drury. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the claimed the color chart including three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along a height of the color chart and each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, through routine optimization, to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Chiu, Baxi, and Drury such that the color chart includes three colors that increase from a lightest color to darkest color along a height of the color chart and each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Chen in view of Chiu, in view of Baxi, and further in view of Drury fails to teach each having a height that is one third the height of the color chart, and wherein the lightest color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and wherein an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
However, Canter teaches a color corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017 (specific color corresponding to whether the specific gravity of urine is within the individual ranges of [0011]; less than about 1.015 [0012]), a color corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022 (specific color corresponding to whether the specific gravity of urine is within the individual ranges of [0011]; greater than about 1.025 [0014]), and wherein a color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022 (specific color corresponding to whether the specific gravity of urine is within the individual ranges of [0011]; between about 1.015 and about 1.025 [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Chiu, Baxi, and Drury such that the lightest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022, as taught by Canter. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the claimed colors corresponding to urine specific gravity values. The ranges of urine specific gravity values were determined through an experiment. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, through routine optimization, to have modified the urine color and concentration assessment system of Chen in view of Drury such that the lightest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a first range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are less than or equal to 1.017, the darkest color on the color reference chart corresponds to a second range of urine specific gravity values that include values that are greater than or equal to 1.022, and an intermediate color between the lightest color and the darkest color corresponds to a third range of values that are between 1.017 and 1.022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Remarks, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7 of Remarks, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that "Chen makes no mention that the color reference chart 130 is used to compare a color thereof to a color of the urine sample contained within the specimen cup 100". However, the claim language as recited in claim 1 states “the urine collection container configured to receive a urine sample for comparing a color of the urine sample to a color of the color chart”. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the quoted limitation is a statement of intended use. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. Furthermore, the urine collection container 110 of Chen is able to receive a urine sample (container portion 110 may be any size or shape capable of receiving biological samples [0032]; having the patient provide a urine specimen into a container portion (e.g., portion 110) [0050]) and the urine sample can be used for comparing a color of the urine sample to a color of the color chart 130. The rest of Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections for claims 1-8 have also been fully considered but are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 JANKI M BAVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00 ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/JANKI M BAVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791