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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 13 January 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn
No claims are cancelled
No claims are newly added
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite, in relevant part: “the predetermined sterilization temperature is greater than a phase change of a liquid into the steam”. This limitation renders the scope of the claim unclear for the following reasons:
First, the “a liquid” is not particularly defined or oriented within the device of the claim (it is recited in isolation as a mere listing of the part with no structural/functional detail appended thereto), thereby being indefinitely arranged within the overall claimed device.
Second, the claim discusses “the steam” as a sterilization means already present or introduced to provide the sterilization. Thus, it is unclear how the “a liquid” undergoes a phase change into “the steam” given that the steam is already present. Applicant may wish to claim a particular numerical temperature range such as “at least 100 degrees Celsius” for the melting temperature of the dye material if it is intended that the “a liquid” is to be water becoming steam for typical steam sterilization.
Finally, the phrase “greater than a phase change” is indefinite given that “a phase change” is not a temperature or numerical value to which the numerical value of the sterilization temperature can be properly compared.
Thus, because the referenced limitation introduces an isolated and undefined “a liquid”, an unclear referent to “the steam”, and an indeterminate numerical comparison to “a phase change”, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, and is therefore indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer et al. (US 2013/0224875 A1), hereinafter “Haarer”, in view of Eroglu (Eroglu, Abdullah. “Introduction to RF Power Amplifier Design and Simulation.”, CRC Press, 2015.), hereinafter “Eroglu”.
Regarding Claim 1, Haarer teaches a process indicator system, comprising:
chromatography paper that provides a defined path (Para. [0143] discusses the “porous insulating layer/dielectric spacer” of Figs. 4D-E as a paper layer in a preferred embodiment, and further discusses flow of the viscoelastic layer into the porous layer upon phase change of the viscoelastic layer. – Chromatography paper is interpreted broadly herein as encompassing any porous paper material capable of wicking a mobile/liquid phase as in thin layer chromatography.),
a dye material ([0032]: “viscoelastic component”) that has a melting point at a predetermined sterilization temperature and ([0032]: “The viscoelastic component is characterized by that when being exposed to temperatures higher than a certain threshold temperature specific for said viscoelastic component, it undergoes a change in its mobility and ability to dissolve and transport other chemical substances and propagate in porous solids. This certain temperature (freezing point) may be selected to be within a temperature range relevant for a specific application...” – Further, given that steam causes the melting of the dye onto the wicking strip, it is interpreted as steam forcing the dye through the defined path.) and that alters an electronic property value of a process indicator ([0020]: “Generally, the TTI structure is configured to define at least one component (e.g., capacitor, resistor, diode, inductance coil, RF circuit or an active or passive antenna), the electrical properties of which are changed as a result of the time and temperature dependent physical and/or chemical process.”);
wherein the dye material is melted and is moved along the defined path of the chromatography paper when penetrated by steam (See Figs. 4A-C and [0016, 0025-0026] discussing flow of the viscoelastic material upon phase change. – Examiner further notes that the recitation “…the dye material is melted and is moved along the defined path of the chromatography paper …” is drawn to a conditional process recitation (under the conditional “when penetrated by steam”) that is not necessitated by the claim and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). – Further, Haarer teaches removal or puncturing of the sealed enclosure “SE” to expose the TTI structure 10 to environmental changes ([0129]) – see Figs. 1A and 1B.),
and wherein the predetermined sterilization temperature is greater than a phase change of a liquid into the steam (In Haarer, the predetermined sterilization temp is greater than a phase change of “a liquid” into steam given that many liquids exist with low phase change temperatures below room temperature, whereas Haarer is drawn to heating. See further para. [0032] discussing selection of the temperature properties of the viscoelastic component.),
a radio frequency antenna that communicates the electronic property value of the process indicator wirelessly ([0136]: “RF tag includes an antenna attached to a resonance or oscillatory circuit (typically including capacitive, inductive and resistive elements), which is energized (e.g., by the received interrogation signal) and which, when energized, excites the antenna to transmit an RF response signal at a resonance frequency of the circuit.”);
as in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 1, Haarer does not specifically teach the process indicator discussed above wherein an amplifier is coupled with the radio frequency antenna that amplifies the radio frequency, as in Claim 1.
However, Eroglu teaches a signal amplifier as a core element within RF transmitter applications so as to boost weak RF signals to a detectable level (See the Introduction section on page 1.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Haarer wherein an amplifier is coupled with the radio frequency antenna that amplifies the radio frequency, such as suggested by Eroglu, so as to boost weak RF signals to a detectable level; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Haarer does not specifically teach the process indicator discussed above further comprising a flexible metal wire of a predetermined length that couples the radio frequency antenna to the amplifier at a distance, as in Claim 2.
However, Eroglu teaches a signal amplifier as a core element within RF transmitter applications so as to boost weak RF signals to a detectable level, wherein Fig. 1.1 (page 2) shows the amplifier connected to an antenna via a wire (implicitly metal and flexible) so as to electrically couple the elements for transmission of the amplified signal.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious when modifying the device of Haarer with a signal amplifier, as discussed above regarding Claim 1, to electrically couple the amplifier to the antenna for transmission of the amplified RF signals.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above wherein the dye material conducts electricity ([0033]: “...a viscoelastic component may be used as a passive reactant to penetrate the porous component at a rate that is temperature dependent and thereby cause...a sudden short in the capacitor...” – Therein, given that the viscoelastic component may cause a capacitor short (allowing the plates to become a single conductor by eliminating the insulating layer between plates), the viscoelastic component must thereby be electrically conductive to cause such a short.), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above wherein the electronic property is resistance, and the resistance between two metal portions varies based on a position of the dye material along the defined path ([0033]: “...a viscoelastic component may be used as a passive reactant to penetrate the porous component at a rate that is temperature dependent and thereby cause either a sudden short in the capacitor or a gradual change in the capacitance due to the difference in the dielectric constants of the pure porous solid and the porous solid filled with the viscoelastic component.” – An ideal capacitor has infinite resistance when charged, wherein said resistance drops as the plates are connected to form a circuit. – See also Figs. 4A-C.), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above further comprising:
a first dielectric polymer layer S (Fig. 4D and [0111]: “The substrate S is a substantially transparent layer, such as...polymer film...” – [0143]: “In the example of FIG. 4D, a TTI structure 400D includes an electrically insulating substrate layer S...”), wherein the two metal portions E1 and E2 are overlaid on the first dielectric polymer layer (Fig. 4D and [0143]: “an electrically conductive layer on top of the substrate patterned to define electrodes E1 and E2”); and a second dielectric polymer layer (Sealed enclosure) overlaid on the dye material (Fig. 4D: Sealed enclosure. – While Haarer does not specifically discuss the sealing layer as a dielectric polymer layer, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to provide the sealing layer as dielectric given that a conductive sealing layer would result in an electrified outer layer upon mobilization of the viscoelastic component, resulting in electrification danger to a user. Therein, given that Haarer teaches the substrate as a dielectric polymer, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to utilize a similar or identical dielectric polymer to reduce material costs and unnecessary device complexity. – See also Fig. 2A wherein both the substrate and upper enclosure are listed as “transparent layer” and indicated as the same material (white fill).),
as in Claim 5.
Further regarding Claim 5, Haarer does not specifically teach the process indicator discussed above wherein the dye layer is overlaid on the first dielectric polymer layer (on the same plane), and the second dielectric polymer layer overlaid on the two metal portions E1 and E2, as in Claim 5.
However, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the device having the claimed relative arrangement of layers would not perform differently than the prior art device (given that the prior art device merely provides flow of the viscoelastic component from above the electrodes as opposed from the side, thereby providing the same result of changing electrical properties between the capacitive plates), absent evidence of criticality, non-obviousness, or unexpected results associated with the position of the layers.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above wherein the dye material has a capacitive property ([0025]: “Alternatively, a viscous substance, being a dielectric material, may present the active reactant of the TTI structure, as for example in the case of a capacitor electric component: the viscoelastic substance fills a porous dielectric spacer that is located in between the capacitor plates, and the degree of penetration of this viscoelastic liquid, being a function of the elapsed time-temperature, changes the capacitance.” – Dielectric materials are electrical insulators that can be polarized by an applied electric field.), as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above further comprising:
a first metal layer; a first dielectric polymer layer overlaid on the first metal layer the chromatography paper overlaid on the first dielectric polymer layer; a second dielectric polymer layer overlaid on the chromatography paper; and a second metal layer overlaid on the second dielectric polymer layer (See the rejection of Claims 1 and 5 above, Fig. 4A, and further [0144]: “It should be understood that two additional insulating layers may be used in the structures 400A and 400B that insulate the conductive layers from any ionic conductance that may occur if the viscoelastic layer is an ionic or charge conductor.” – See also paras. [0108, 0111, 0143] discussing the insulating layer as a polymer film or paper layer in preferred embodiments – see also Figs. 4A-E.),
wherein the dye material, when melted, is disposed in at least a portion of the chromatography paper, between the first dielectric polymer layer and the second dielectric polymer layer (See Figs. 4A-C showing the dye material/viscoelastic component flowing into the porous material (paper layer) upon melting and exiting the holding reservoir. – See also para. [0143] discussing the porous layer as a paper material layer in preferred embodiments.),
as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above wherein the electronic property is capacitance and the capacitance between the first metal layer and the second metal layer varies based on a position of the dye material along the defined path ([0033]: “...a viscoelastic component may be used as a passive reactant to penetrate the porous component at a rate that is temperature dependent and thereby cause either a sudden short in the capacitor or a gradual change in the capacitance due to the difference in the dielectric constants of the pure porous solid and the porous solid filled with the viscoelastic component.” – An ideal capacitor has infinite resistance when charged, wherein said resistance drops as the plates are connected to form a circuit. – See also Figs. 4A-C.), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above further comprising a power source that powers broadcast of the electronic property value ([0016]: “...radiation that is intrinsically generated by the TTI device, relaying on internal energy resources such as batteries...”), as in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, Haarer teaches a process indicator system, comprising:
chromatography paper that provides a defined path (Para. [0143] discusses the “porous insulating layer/dielectric spacer” of Figs. 4D-E as a paper layer in a preferred embodiment, and further discusses flow of the viscoelastic layer into the porous layer upon phase change of the viscoelastic layer. – Chromatography paper is interpreted broadly herein as encompassing any porous paper material capable of wicking a mobile/liquid phase as in thin layer chromatography.),
a dye material ([0032]: “viscoelastic component”) that has a melting point at a predetermined sterilization temperature ([0032]: “The viscoelastic component is characterized by that when being exposed to temperatures higher than a certain threshold temperature specific for said viscoelastic component, it undergoes a change in its mobility and ability to dissolve and transport other chemical substances and propagate in porous solids. This certain temperature (freezing point) may be selected to be within a temperature range relevant for a specific application...” – Further, given that steam causes the melting of the dye onto the wicking strip, it is interpreted as steam forcing the dye through the defined path.) and that alters an electronic property value of a process indicator ([0020]: “Generally, the TTI structure is configured to define at least one component (e.g., capacitor, resistor, diode, inductance coil, RF circuit or an active or passive antenna), the electrical properties of which are changed as a result of the time and temperature dependent physical and/or chemical process.”);
wherein the dye material is melted and is moved along the defined path of the chromatography paper when penetrated by steam (See Figs. 4A-C and [0016, 0025-0026] discussing flow of the viscoelastic material upon phase change. – Examiner further notes that the recitation “…the dye material is melted and is moved along the defined path of the chromatography paper …” is drawn to a conditional process recitation (under the conditional “when penetrated by steam”) that is not necessitated by the claim and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). – Applicant may wish to amend the claim in accordance with the instant specification to particularly recite the device as configured to allow steam entry into the interior of the device so as to make contact with the chromatography paper, given that the prior art of Haarer relied upon here is sealed, not permitting steam entry ([0110]).),
and wherein the predetermined sterilization temperature is greater than a phase change of a liquid into the steam (In Haarer, the predetermined sterilization temp is greater than a phase change of “a liquid” into steam given that many liquids exist with low phase change temperatures below room temperature, whereas Haarer is drawn to heating. See further para. [0032] discussing selection of the temperature properties of the viscoelastic component.),
a radio frequency antenna that communicates the electronic property value of the process indicator wirelessly ([0136]: “RF tag includes an antenna attached to a resonance or oscillatory circuit (typically including capacitive, inductive and resistive elements), which is energized (e.g., by the received interrogation signal) and which, when energized, excites the antenna to transmit an RF response signal at a resonance frequency of the circuit.”);
as in Claim 18.
Further regarding Claim 18, Haarer does not specifically teach the process indicator discussed above wherein an amplifier that amplifies the radio frequency, wherein the amplifier is coupled to the radio frequency antenna with a predetermined length of flexible wire that allows the radio frequency antenna to be positioned outside a sterilization container while the chromatography paper, dye material, and amplifier are inside the sterilization container, as in Claim 18.
However, Eroglu teaches a signal amplifier as a core element within RF transmitter applications so as to boost weak RF signals to a detectable level (See the Introduction section on page 1.). Further, Fig. 1.1 (page 2) shows the amplifier connected to an antenna via a wire (implicitly metal and flexible) so as to electrically couple the elements for transmission of the amplified signal. Therein, the figure indicates the antenna can be placed at a different location from the amplifier via the wire.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Haarer wherein an amplifier is coupled with the radio frequency antenna that amplifies the radio frequency, such as suggested by Eroglu, so as to boost weak RF signals to a detectable level; and wherein the amplifier is coupled to the radio frequency antenna with a predetermined length of flexible wire, such as suggested by Eroglu, so as to couple the antenna and the amplifier as separately placeable elements; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Examiner further notes that the commensurately structured indicator, amplifier, wire, and antenna of the prior art are fully capable of “allowing” the device to be positioned as claimed with the antenna outside of the sterilization container which is not a positively required functionality given the sterilization container is not positively claimed in this inferential recitation, as the prior art commensurately provides a wire of a predetermined length connected between the amplifier and RF antenna.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 18 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above wherein the electronic property is resistance, and the resistance between two metal portions varies based on a position of the dye material in the chromatography paper when melted along the defined path ([0033]: “...a viscoelastic component may be used as a passive reactant to penetrate the porous component at a rate that is temperature dependent and thereby cause either a sudden short in the capacitor or a gradual change in the capacitance due to the difference in the dielectric constants of the pure porous solid and the porous solid filled with the viscoelastic component.” – An ideal capacitor has infinite resistance when charged, wherein said resistance drops as the plates are connected to form a circuit. – See also Figs. 4A-C. – See also para. [0143] discussing the porous material as a paper material penetrated by the viscoelastic component when melted.), as in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 18 as discussed above. Further, Haarer teaches the process indicator discussed above wherein the electronic property is capacitance and the capacitance between a first metal layer and a second metal layer varies based on a position of the dye material in the chromatography paper when melted along the defined path ([0033]: “...a viscoelastic component may be used as a passive reactant to penetrate the porous component at a rate that is temperature dependent and thereby cause either a sudden short in the capacitor or a gradual change in the capacitance due to the difference in the dielectric constants of the pure porous solid and the porous solid filled with the viscoelastic component.” – An ideal capacitor has infinite resistance when charged, wherein said resistance drops as the plates are connected to form a circuit. – See also Figs. 4A-C. -- See also para. [0143] discussing the porous material as a paper material penetrated by the viscoelastic component when melted.), as in Claim 20.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer in view of Eroglu, as applied to Claims 1-8, 10, and 18-20 above, and in further view of Foley (US PAT 4,448,548 A), hereinafter “Foley”.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Haarer/Eroglu does not specifically teach the process indicator discussed above further comprising a printed indication of a location of the dye material on the defined path that indicates that a sterilization condition has been met, as in Claim 9.
However, Foley teaches a respective steam sterilization completeness indicator comprising a dye tablet 4 which melts and moves along a predefined path 5, wherein when the melted dye passes a printed location indicator 8, a user may view the indicator and determine the sterilization process is complete. Therein in Haarer/Eroglu, this mechanism would provide an additional layer of confirmational redundancy, thereby reducing errors drawn to incomplete sterilization.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Haarer/Eroglu further comprising a printed indication of a location of the dye material on the path that indicates that a sterilization condition has been met, such as suggested by Foley, so as to provide an additional layer of confirmational redundancy, thereby reducing errors drawn to incomplete sterilization/ and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein given the transparency of substrates in Haarer.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(b)
Independent Claims 1 and 18 are amended to recite, in relevant part: “the predetermined sterilization temperature is greater than a phase change of a liquid into the steam”, rendering said Claims 1 and 18, and their dependents, indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed above in the body of the action and as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that the temperature threshold indicator of the prior art of Harrer is drawn to temperature monitoring of food, whereas the instant claims are drawn to steam sterilization, thereby allegedly relating to fundamentally different concepts.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because when an apparatus is claimed, its patentability is based on the structure of the apparatus and not on the function it performs or the field in which it is applied. In this case, whether the indicator device is used in a food transport environment or a steam sterilization environment is immaterial, as the function of indicating when a temperature threshold is surpassed is the same. Limitations based on the intended use of a structure do not confer patentability if the prior art is capable of performing the same function – see MPEP 2111.02(II). As discussed above in the body of the action, the cited prior art of Haarer provides to commensurately disclose the positively claimed structural arrangement/functionality of the sterilization indicator as claimed and is thus fully capable of being utilized in operation with a steam sterilization environment in as much as presently recited and required herein – the instant claims not requiring any steam-providing provisions such as a steam generation system, steam chamber, saturated steam condition, or particular melting temperature range accounting for the presence of steam and/or temperature limitations related thereto.
Applicant further alleges that Haarer does not meet the “chromatography paper” requirement of the amended Claims 1 and 18, asserting that Haarer merely teaches a generic porous medium. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Haarer para. [0143] discusses the porous material as being a paper layer in preferred embodiments. As discussed above in the body of the action, the limitation of “chromatography paper” in the instant claims is interpreted broadly to encompass any paper capable of transporting a mobile phase via capillary flow. As the paper of Haarer transports the mobile phase of the viscoelastic component (See Figs. 4A-C), said paper in Haarer is considered as being chromatography paper. Further, the paper of Haarer commensurately serves to provide a defined flow path.
Applicant further alleges the device of Haarer does not mention any capability for steam to enter its indicator device, thereby failing the amended Claims 1 and 18 recitations “when penetrated by steam” in relation to the chromatography paper.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the recitation “…the dye material is melted and is moved along the defined path of the chromatography paper …” is drawn to a conditional process recitation (under the conditional “when penetrated by steam”) that is not necessitated by the claim and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Further, Haarer teaches removal or puncturing of the sealed enclosure “SE” to expose the TTI structure 10 to environmental changes ([0129]) – see Figs. 1A and 1B. Therein, given the exposure of the R1 paper layer to the environment after removal of the sealed enclosure, as seen through Fig. 1Ashowing the TTI device 10 removed from the sealed enclosure “SE”, said paper layer is fully capable of being penetrated by steam. Further, these arguments are over conditional process recitations which are not positively necessitated by the claim and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitations are not afforded patentable weight. Haarer serves to commensurately provide the positively claimed elements of chromatography paper and flowable medium and thus fully meets all of the structurally required claim limitations.
Applicant further alleges Haarer does not teach or suggest the use of a specific temperature for melting the dye material, namely that the melting and movement of the dye material occurs when the predetermined sterilization temperature is greater than a temperature of a phase change of a liquid into the steam.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the “a liquid” is not particularly defined or oriented within the device of the claim (it is recited in isolation as a mere listing of the part with no structural/functional detail appended thereto), thereby being indefinitely arranged within the overall claimed device. The claim discusses “the steam” as a sterilization means already present or introduced to provide the sterilization. Thus, it is unclear how the “a liquid” undergoes a phase change into “the steam” given that the steam is already present. Applicant may wish to claim a particular numerical temperature range such as “at least 100 degrees Celsius” for the melting temperature of the dye material if it is intended that the “a liquid” is to be water becoming steam for typical steam sterilization. Finally, the phrase “greater than a phase change” is indefinite given that “a phase change” is not a temperature or numerical value to which the numerical value of the sterilization temperature can be properly compared. Thus, given the breadth of “a liquid” and indefinite understanding thereto, the device of Haarer is considered to meet the limitation given that it equivocally comprises a dye material melting at a particular temperature.
Applicant further states that the prior art of Eroglu does not cure any of the alleged deficiencies in Haarer. However, ad discussed above, no such deficiencies exist in Haarer. Eroglu is not relied upon for curing any of the alleged deficiencies.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 19-20
Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that dependent Claims 2-10 and 19-20 are allegedly allowable for their dependence on Claims 1 and 18 due to the alleged deficiencies in Haarer relating to amended Claims 1 and 18. However, as discussed above, no such deficiencies exist in Haarer. Thus, dependent Claims 2-10 and 19-20 are not allowable merely for their dependence on Claims 1 and 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798