Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority date of 12/31/2008 based on 61/141812 is acknowledged. It is noted that the limitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially continuous ring-like configuration” in claims 7 and 12 does not have support in the ‘812 provision application”.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration” in claims 7 and 12 comprises new matter to the original disclosure. Note i) the term “continuous” means “unbroken” or without interruption. ii)The disclosure shows figs. 2 and 7, both with interrupted gaps which contradict the meaning of the recitation “continuous”, and iii) the specification does not to provide any clarity to the term “continuous”.
Claims 7 and 12 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.
The recitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration” is relative and undefined by the specification. The term “continuous” means “unbroken” or without interruption. The disclosure shows figs. 2 and 7, both with interrupted gaps which contradict the meaning of the recitation “continuous”.
Claims 1-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Kamineni (8590729) (based on provisional 61/040067 date 03/27/2008).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
351
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
451
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
400
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
427
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a plurality of deflection ribs configured to buckle as the base deforms in response to an increase in negative pressure internal to the container.
(3) It has been a goal of conventional container design to form container bodies that have a desired and predictable shape after filling and at the point of sale.
include designated flexing portions, or vacuum panels, that deform when subjected to typical negative internal pressures resulting from the hot filling process. The inward deflection of the vacuum panels tends to equalize the pressure differential between the interior and exterior of the container to enhance the ability of the cylindrical sections to maintain an attractive shape, to enhance the ease of labeling, or to provide like benefit.
The ribs 80 can be equally spaced circumferentially about the base 32. In the illustrated embodiment, four ribs 80 are shown spaced approximately 90.degree. circumferentially from each other, though alternative embodiments can include any desired number of ribs spaced equidistantly about the base or at different spatial intervals.
(49) Each rib 80 can be radially elongate, and can extend between the standing ring 46 and the hub 48. Broadly stated, each rib 80 can be connected between two or more (e.g., at least a pair of) differently sloped surfaces of the base. For instance, each rib can extend between the raised ring 52 and the hub interface wall 56. More particularly still, each rib 80 can terminate at a radially outer end 82 that is connected to the raised ring 52, and can further terminate at its radially inner end 84 which is connected to the medial ring 54. Each rib can thus be said to extend between, and be connected between, the raised ring 52 and the medial ring 54. Specifically, the radially outer end 82 of each rib 80 can be connected to the sloped radial wall 64 of the raised ring 52, and the radially inner end 84 of each rib 80 can be connected to the radially outer end of the medial ring 54 at a location proximate to the inner medial wall 68.
(54) FIG. 6 illustrates a phantomed profile of the base 32 in its as-molded state, or undeformed state 106.
From the Provisional ‘067
[0040] Referring now also to Figs. 5-6, the base 32 can further include deflection panels in the form of one or more ribs 80 that can be spaced circumferentially about the base. Each rib 80 does not extend circumferentially about the base, and can thus define an enclosed outer perimeter 83 (Fig. 3). The ribs 80 can be equally spaced circumferentially about the base 32. In the illustrated embodiment, four ribs 80 are shown spaced approximately 90° circumferentially from each other.
[0059] Referring now also to Fig. 12, the base 132 can further include deflection panels in the form of one or more ribs 180 that can be spaced circumferentially about the base. Each rib 180 does not extend circumferentially about the base, and can thus define an enclosed outer perimeter 183 (Fig. 9). The ribs 180 can be equally spaced circumferentially about the base 132. In the illustrated embodiment, eight ribs 180 are shown spaced approximately 45° circumferentially from each other.
[0076] Referring now also to Fig. 19, the base 232 can further include deflection panels in the form of one or more ribs 280 that can be spaced circumferentially about the base. Each rib 280 does not extend circumferentially about the base, and can thus define an enclosed outer perimeter 283 (Fig. 9). The ribs 280 can be equally spaced circumferentially about the base 232. In the illustrated embodiment, four ribs 280 are shown spaced approximately 90° circumferentially from each other.
Kamineni teaches a base for a plastic container comprising:
an outer support portion comprising an annular support ring (60, 146);
a structured formation ring (64 and/or 54, 164 and/or 166 fig. 14) including a plurality of sequential formations (80, 180), the sequential formations including a plurality of teeth (formed by ribs 80, 180) disposed in a substantially ring-like configuration;
a flat or step portion (52, 152) provided between the outer support portion and the structured formation ring;
an inner inversion portion (56 and/or 54, 154 fig. 13 or 156 fig. 14) disposed radially inwardly of the structured formation ring; and
a central portion (70+74, 148) including one or more structural reinforcing formations (100, see ribs in fig. 8 and 9);
wherein at least the inner inversion portion is configured to flex (see figs. 6, 7 at 108,109 or figs. 13/14) in response to internal vacuum forces associated with said container. With respect to the new limitation that “wherein the plurality of teeth are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth, and the plurality of teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions to form a circumferentially continuous ring”. Note the arrangement in fig. 9 (zoomed in below) with a direct measurement showing the distance between adjacent teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth, and the plurality of teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions to form a circumferentially continuous ring.
PNG
media_image6.png
792
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, note the central portion has a plurality of radially extending ribs in fig. 9.
Regarding claim 3, note there is an intermediate surface portion (surface has no rib) between adjacent sequential formations.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, note that there is annular segment including a plurality of alternating teeth and intermediate surface portions from the adjacent ribs in Kamineni.
Regarding claim 5, the term “zipper ring” does not impart any structure over the ring formed by plurality teeth including the teeth in Kamineni in fig. 14.
Regarding claim 6, note that “diamond shape” is broad since a diamond can be shaped in various shapes and this “diamond shape” does not impart any structure over the teeth 180 in Kamineni.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood the ribs in Kamineni in figs. 8 and 9 in the provisional comprises the circumferentially continuous configuration as claimed since the claim requires only a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance between of a single tooth.
Regarding the new claim 10, regarding the limitation “define a circumferential hinge point configured to facilitate articulation of the inner inversion portion relative to the outer support portion”. Note that there is no structural difference between the claimed bottom and Kamineni’s bottom. The ribs 180 as set forth above would behave in the same manner as the claimed ribs since these ribs are terminate at the flat or step portion and the inner inversion portion. When subjected under pressure these ribs would provide a hinge point as there is a structural change from non-support portions at the flat or step portion and the inner inversion portion to a supported portion formed by the ribs 180.
Regarding claim 12, Kamineni teaches a base for a plastic container comprising: an outer support portion comprising an annular support ring (146); a structured formation ring (64 and/or 54, 164 and/or 166 fig. 14) including a plurality of sequential formations (80, 180), the sequential formations including a plurality of teeth (formed by ribs 80, 180) disposed in a substantially continuous ring-like configuration wherein the plurality of teeth are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth, and the plurality of teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions to form a circumferentially continuous ring as set forth supra, and a flat or step portion (52, 152) provided between the outer support portion and the structured formation ring; an inner inversion portion (56 and/or 54, 154 fig. 13 or 156 fig. 14) disposed radially inwardly of the structured formation ring; and a central portion (70+74, 148) including one or more structural reinforcing formations (100, 200 see ribs in fig. 8 and 9); wherein at least the inner inversion portion is configured to flex in response to internal vacuum forces associated with said container; and the plurality of teeth provide a hinge point to distribute stress concentration forces substantially evenly around a perimeter of the support ring. Regarding the limitation that the plurality of teeth provide a hinge point to distribute stress concentration forces substantially evenly around a perimeter of the support ring. Note that this limitation does not impart any structure over the rib structures in Kamineni as the ribs are terminate at a radially outer end that is connected to the raised ring. This would reinforce and would provide a hinge point when stress is applied or when subjected to inverted pressure.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamineni.
Regarding claims 1, and 12 in the alternative, regarding the limitation “wherein the plurality of teeth are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth”, note that given the various sizes of the teeth and spacing disposed in Kamineni, one or ordinary skill would recognize to provide the various sizes for the teeth including teeth that are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth to provide the desired rigidity during the hot filling process, depending on the internal pressure and/or to control the amount of deflection between the flat or step portion and the inner inversion portion. This is routine experimentation given the teachings and/or disclosures of Kamineni.
Also, in claims 1, 6, 8, and 11-12, given the teachings of Kamineni that the teeth can be of various sizes and shapes (80, 180, 280, 380 in figs. 2, 9, 16, and 23) and the spacing of ribs can also be varied. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide forty teeth of the diamond shaped ribs (claim 6, 11) arranged with a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 40 teeth (claim 8) to provide added structural support depending on the size (of the container and/or bottom) and/or the thickness of the material and/or the pressure and/or temperature applied during the hot-filing process to the provide the desired rigidity during the hot filling process, depending on the internal pressure and/or to control the amount of deflection between the flat or step portion and the inner inversion portion. This is routine experimentation given the teachings and/or disclosures of Kamineni.
Regarding claim 2, note the central portion has a plurality of radially extending ribs in fig. 9.
Regarding claim 3, note there is an intermediate surface portion (surface has no rib) between adjacent sequential formations.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, note that there is annular segment including a plurality of alternating teeth and intermediate surface portions from the adjacent ribs in Kamineni.
Regarding claim 5, the term “zipper ring” does not impart any structure over the ring formed by plurality teeth including the teeth in Kamineni in fig. 14.
Regarding claim 6, note that “diamond shape” is broad since a diamond can be shaped in various shapes and this “diamond shape” does not impart any structure over the teeth 180 in Kamineni.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood the ribs in Kamineni in figs. 8 and 9 in the provisional comprises the circumferentially continuous configuration as claimed since the claim requires only a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance between of a single tooth.
Regarding the new claim 10, regarding the limitation “define a circumferential hinge point configured to facilitate articulation of the inner inversion portion relative to the outer support portion”. Note that there is no structural difference between the claimed bottom and Kamineni’s bottom. The ribs 180 as set forth above would behave in the same manner as the claimed ribs since these ribs are terminate at the flat or step portion and the inner inversion portion. When subjected under pressure these ribs would provide a hinge point as there is a structural change from non-support portions at the flat or step portion and the inner inversion portion to a supported portion formed by the ribs 180.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamineni in view of Miyazaki et al. (20090218003) and Katsuta (JP2008068898) or Denner et al. (8127955). Kamineni meets all claimed limitations including except for the in an unfilled condition, the plurality of teeth extend below the annular support ring.
Miyazaki teaches that it is known in the art to provide pull out the bottom in an unfilled position.
PNG
media_image7.png
646
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
A method and device for manufacturing a content-filled bottle having an inversion part at its bottom. In producing the bottle, the inversion part is inverted to prevent deformation of a body part caused by a pressure reduction in the bottle, and as a result, inappropriate deformation and buckling of the bottle are prevented, enabling efficient manufacturing of the bottle with high quality. ….After that, with the empty bottle (3) held positioned by the empty-bottle chuck (41) and the empty-bottle support table (42), the inversion part (12) is projected to the outside of the body part (6) by a push-down member (54) of bottom projecting means. Then, the bottle (3) is filled with contents and sealed by a cap. The inverted part (12) is recessed into the body part (6), and the assistance device (24) is separated from the bottle (3). (Abstract)
Katsuta or Denner, each also teaches the pulling out of the bottom structure.
PNG
media_image8.png
923
347
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
747
477
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
925
691
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(43) Referring to the exemplary embodiment of FIGS. 11a-d, the container may be blow molded with the pressure panel 20 in the inwardly or upwardly inclined position. As shown in FIG. 11d, a force can be imposed on the folding panel 20 (e.g., by means of a mechanical pusher 21 introduced through the neck region and forced downwardly) in order to place the panel in the outwardly inclined position prior to use as a vacuum container. Following the filling, capping, and cooling of the container (e.g., through the use of cold water spray), a vacuum is created within the filled container. As shown in FIGS. 12a-12d, a force can be imposed on the folding panel 20 in order to force the panel from the initial, outwardly-inclined position to an inwardly-inclined position. For example, the force can be applied by means of a mechanical pusher 22 or some other external device creating relative movement of the bottle base relative to a punch or the like. Alternatively, the panel 20 can be configured to invert from the initial, outwardly-inclined position to the inverted, inwardly-projecting position solely under the force of the internal vacuum developed within the container. For example, a portion of the panel can be initially resilient enough such that the panel inverts solely under the internal vacuum forces.
(41) The inwardly-directed or outwardly-projecting flutes or projections can function as ribs to increase the force required to invert the panel. It will be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, that the forces applied to invert the panel will be sufficient to overcome any flute or rib strengthened panel, and that once the panel is inverted, the panel will be very resistant to reversion to the initial position, for example, if the container is dropped or shocked.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plurality of teeth extend below the annular support ring in an unfilled condition to enable hot filling of the container and to prevent deformation of the bottle.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Denner (20070199915).
PNG
media_image11.png
711
1210
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
685
1217
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
700
1008
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(34) To assist this occurring, and as will be seen particularly in FIGS. 3 and 4, immediately adjacent the ring or annular portion 6 there may be an instep or recess 8..
(39) Referring specifically to FIGS. 8a and 9, the panel portions can be outwardly convex, and evenly distributed around the central axis to create alternating regions of greater angular inclination 19 and regions of lesser angular inclination 18.
(40) Referring to FIGS. 15a-d and 17a-d, convex or downwardly outwardly-projecting flutes are shown. However, concave or inwardly-directed fluting arrangements are also possible. The embodiment having inwardly-directed flutes may offer less resistance to initial inverting forces, coupled with increased resistance to forces tending to revert the panel back to the initial position. In this way, the inwardly-directed flutes can behave in much the same manner as ribs to prevent the panel from being forced back out to the initial, outwardly-projecting position, but allow for hinge movement from the initial, outwardly-projecting position to the inwardly-directed position.
(41) The inwardly-directed or outwardly-projecting flutes or projections can function as ribs to increase the force required to invert the panel. It will be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, that the forces applied to invert the panel will be sufficient to overcome any flute- or rib-strengthened panel, and that once the panel is inverted, the panel will be very resistant to reversion to the initial position, for example, if the container is dropped or shocked.
Denner teaches a plastic container comprising
an outer support (about 6) portion comprising:
an annular support ring (about 8 fig. 13A),
a structured formation ring (60) including
a plurality of sequential formations, the sequential formations including a plurality of teeth (note the eye-shaped portions defined by line G in fig. 16C see examiner’s note above) disposed in a substantially ring-like configuration, wherein the plurality of teeth are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance between of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth, and the plurality of teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions (note there is a very spacing formed by the folding line) to form a circumferentially continuous ring; a flat or step portion (13 fig. 13A) provided between the outer support portion and the structured formation ring;
an inner inversion portion (18/19) disposed radially inwardly of the structured formation ring; and
a central portion (2) including one or more structural reinforcing at 3.
wherein at least the inner inversion portion is configured to flex in response to internal vacuum forces associated with said container.
Regarding claim 2, note the ribs in the central portion.
Regarding claim 5, the term “zipper ring” does not impart any structure over the ring formed by plurality teeth including the teeth in Denner.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, note that “diamond shape” is broad since a diamond can be shaped in various shapes and this “diamond shape” does not impart any structure over the teeth defined by Denner, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, note that the teeth portion is in “substantially continuous ring-like configuration” as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Denner does not teach the 40 teeth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide forty teeth of the diamond shaped ribs arranged with a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 40 teeth (claim 8) to provide the desired flexibility of the inversion panel 18/19 depending on the size and/or thickness of the container being hot-filled. This is routine experimentation given the teachings and/or disclosures of Denner.
Regarding claim 9, note the teeth extend below the annular support ring in fig.16B.
Regarding claim 10, note the hinge line formed by the scalloped portions of the teeth in fig. 15d. such that the distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than the circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that the filing of the Terminal Disclaimer overcomes the Double Patenting rejection.
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration”, applicant asserts that a) the term “substantially” is a well-known term of degree for real world variation for “reasonable deviation” and/or “reasonable tolerances”. In this case, the term “substantially” is used with the term “continuous” which means “uninterrupted” or “unbroken” which denotes a binary condition with no variation. Although applicant can act as their own lexicographer by defining specific terms in the patent specification, this recitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration” is introduced after the original disclosure is filed without any concrete definition from the specification adds specificities to the applicant and deems having new matter, b) applicant asserts that specification support from the recitation “substantially ring-like configuration” in paragraph 4. Note that this recitation does not include the term “continuous” which by definition means “uninterrupted” or “unbroken” as set forth above, c) applicant asserts that paragraph 23 state that the “an annular segment including a plurality of alternative teeth 110 and intermediate surface portions 100”. The examiner submits that this recitation does not describe a “continuous” configuration as recited in claims 7 and 12, and d) Applicant assert that figs. 2 and 7 describe 40 diamond shaped teeth in a dense circumferential ring pattern and gap is recited in the claim “wherein the plurality of teeth are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth, and the plurality of teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions to form a circumferentially continuous ring”. The examiner submits applicant’s drawings do shows the 40 teeth and the teeth are closely arranged such that a distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is less than a circumferential distance of a single tooth of the plurality of teeth, and the plurality of teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions to form a circumferentially continuous ring. However, this is not the same as the limitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration”. The later recitation recites only the teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration while the former include both the teeth and the intermediate surface portions.
The 2nd, 112 rejection stands, as set forth above, i) the recitation “a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration” is relative and undefined by the specification, ii) the term “continuous” means “unbroken” or without interruption, iii) the disclosure shows figs. 2 and 7, both with interrupted gaps which contradict the meaning of the recitation “continuous”.
Regarding the Kamineni rejection, applicant asserts that Kamineni fails to teach or suggest a plurality of sequential formations that comprise a plurality of teeth disposed in a substantially ring-like configuration. Applicant asserts that elements 180 are not disposed in a substantially ring-like configuration.
The examiner submits:
i) The Kamineni’s provisional application including figures 1-22 which are described in the Kamineni’s ‘067 provisional application.
ii) Applicant asserted that the four teeth do not together form “a substantially ring-like configuration”. Note that the claim set forth “a plurality of sequential formations” which requires only two formations. Applicant’s own specification does not define as how many formations would form this “a substantially ring-like configuration” and refuse on record to define as such. Also, the defines “teeth alternate with intermediate surface portions to form a circumferentially continuous ring does not impart any structure over the bottom structures with ribs and circular intermediate portions between the ribs in Kamineni.
iii) Also noted that Kamineni does not limit to four ribs. Fig. 9 (also in the ‘067) teaches more than four ribs:
PNG
media_image14.png
428
509
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9 being rejected by Kamineni in view of Miyazaki and Katsuta or Denner, applicant asserts that proposed combination represents a selective picking and choosing of disparate elements from at least three separate references, without an articulated rationale or sufficient motivation to fully combine them as compositely claimed. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (a proper obviousness rejection must show “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed’’).
The examiner submits:
i) All applied references are directed to hot-filling liquid contents.
ii) Each of Miyazaki and Katsuta or Denner teaches a method of pushing out bottom out
iii) note the teaching from Kamineni that the base is capable of being deflect similar to the secondary references of Miyazaki and Katsuta or Denner. Each of Miyazaki and Katsuta or Denner teaches a process of filling the empty bottle by pushing out the bottom outward prior to the filling process. Under KSR, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that apply this process would prevent deformation of the body and prevent inappropriate deformation buckling, citing from Miyazaki ‘003. Thus, to use this process using mechanism means as taught by Miyazaki and Katsuta or Denner would have been obvious given the explicit benefit taught by the applied references using this method.
Regarding the Denner reference, applicant is noted that the teeth in Denner meet the limitation of the plurality of “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration”, using only the drawings (similar to the same method as applicant’s) there is very small intermediate surface gap formed by the folding line between the teeth. Basically, applicant relies only the drawings for interpretation of the limitation “a plurality of substantially diamond-shaped teeth disposed in a substantially circumferentially continuous configuration”. In the same manner, there are teeth including intermediate surface portion can be interpreted in the same manner.
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 TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733