Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 07/06/2026 are acknowledged and entered. Accordingly, claims 36-37 and 39-56 are pending in the application with claims 51-55 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 36-37 and 39-50 and 56 are as follow.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A. Claim limitation “an imaging device configured to capture an image” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “to capture an image” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 36 and 56 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 5 line 18, as shown in FIG. 1, the beverage forming station 11 includes an imaging device 15 arranged to capture an image of a portion of the cartridge 1.
B. Claim limitation “a controller configured to control the imaging device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “to control the imaging device” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 36 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 6 line 21, As shown in FIGS. 2-4, the imaging device 15 is operatively coupled to a controller 16. In some embodiments, the controller 16 activates the imaging device 15 to capture an image.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 36-37, 39-43, 46-47 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vreede et al. (US 2016/0309951 A 1) in view of Abdoo et al. (US 2018/0239319 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 36, De Vreede et al. disclose a beverage preparation machine, comprising: a cartridge receiver (a hinging part 2 and brewing chamber 19, [0043], Fig 1B) configured to receive a beverage cartridge (pad 4, [0043], Fig 1 B) to form a beverage, the cartridge receiver being movable between an open position and a closed position (see Fig 3A);
an imaging device (barcode scanner 301, [0056], Fig 3A) configured to capture an image of a portion of the beverage cartridge (barcode scanner 301 shines light onto the consumable 4 during the closing movement of lid 2, [0056], Fig 3A), the imaging device being located on the cartridge receiver such that the imaging device is movable with the cartridge receiver relative to the beverage cartridge as the cartridge receiver is moved between the open position and the closed position (see Fig 3A; scanner 301 is mounted on the inner side of lid 2 and during movement of the lid, the scanner "swipes over the reflection element 42" which is a barcode 52 or 62, [0056]);
a controller (a controller for controlling one or more parameters of the beverage dispenser according to the recognized placement and/or type of consumable, [0017]) configured to control the imaging device (see Fig 3A) to capture the image of the portion of the beverage cartridge in the cartridge receiver when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed (barcode scanner 301 shines light onto the consumable 4 during the closing movement of lid 2, [0056], Fig 3A); and
De Vreede et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: a trigger configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed, wherein the controller controls the imaging device to capture the image according to the trigger.
Abdoo et al. teach a beverage preparation machine (510 generally refers to a household appliance, [0055], Fig 1. Note: “a beverage dispensing system” taught by De Vreede et al. already), comprising: a controller (a processor 670 that cooperates with the object recognition system 672, [0082], Figs 1 and 8. Note: “controller” taught by De Vreede et al. already), and a trigger (motion sensors 650, [0077], Figs 1-7. Note: “a trigger” taught by De Vreede et al. a light sensor 32, [0053], Fig 2 already) configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed, wherein the controller controls the imaging device (camera 570, [0077], Figs 1-7; camera 570 “is capable of “configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed” as claimed. Note: “imaging device” taught by De Vreede et al. already) to capture the image according to the trigger (object recognition system 672, [0067], the system can be configured to be capable of sensing the speed of each door 526 as each door 526 moves between the open and closed positions 528, 530. Such a sensing operation can be done through motion sensors 650, [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Vreede et al. with Abdoo et al.’s further teaching of a trigger configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed, wherein the controller controls the imaging device to capture the image according to the trigger; because Abdoo et al. teach, in Para. [0077] of providing an excellent sensing device capable of sensing the speed of each door while moves between the open and closed positions for operational safety during processing.
Regarding Claims 37 and 39-43, 46-50 and 56, De Vreede et al. in view of Abdoo et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and further teach:
Claim 37, wherein the cartridge receiver (a hinging part 2 and brewing chamber 19, [0043], Fig 1B) includes a top portion (hinging part 2, Fig 1B) and a bottom portion (brewing chamber 19, Fig 1B), and wherein the imaging device (a barcode scanner 301 on hinging part 2, [0056], Fig 3A) is located on the top portion of the cartridge receiver (See Fig. 3A), and the bottom portion receives the beverage cartridge (pad 4, [0043], Fig 1A), and wherein the imaging device is configured to capture an image of at least a portion of a lid of the beverage cartridge (a portion of a !id of pad 4, [0043], Fig 1B, 3A).
Claim 39, wherein the trigger (motion sensors 650, [0077], Figs 1-7, taught by Abdoo et al.) detects when the imaging device (camera 570, [0077], Figs 1-7. Note: De Vreede et al. “imaging device” taught already) has reached a set angle relative to a lid of the beverage cartridge (a lid of the beverage cartridge, Fig 1C, De Vreede et al.).
Claim 40, wherein the set angle is a perpendicular angle (clearly, "the set angle"
is capable of be "a perpendicular angle" as claimed).
Claim 41, wherein the trigger comprises a mechanical switch (motion sensors 650, [0077], Figs 1-7, Abdoo et al.).
Claim 42, further comprising a lighting element (consumable recognition system 30… light source 31, [0053], Figs 1B-2) configured to illuminate the portion of the beverage cartridge (light source, e.g. an LED or a laser, is provided for emitting light 35, in particular a light beam, in a predetermined direction to the consumable 4, [0053]).
Claim 43, wherein the cartridge receiver (a hinging part 2 and brewing chamber 19, [0043], Fig 1B) includes a top portion (hinging part 2, Fig 1B) and a bottom portion (brewing chamber 19, Fig 1B), wherein the imaging device (barcode scanner 301, [0056], Fig 3A) and the lighting element (light source 31, [0053],) are located on the top portion of the cartridge receiver (301 and 31 are located on 2, Figs 1A-3A).
Claim 46, wherein the controller is configured to decode information from the image (through the barcode scanner 301, [0056], Fig 3A).
Claim 47, wherein the decoded information comprises a beverage preparation parameter (clearly, "the decoded information" is capable of "comprises a beverage preparation parameter" as claimed).
Regarding Independent Claim 56, De Vreede et al. disclose a beverage preparation machine, comprising: a cartridge receiver a hinging part 2 and brewing chamber 19, [0043], Fig 1) for receiving a beverage cartridge (pad 4, [0043], Fig 1) while the cartridge receiver is in an open position (see Fig 3A), the cartridge receiver being movable from the open position to a closed position to at least partially enclose the beverage cartridge in the cartridge receiver (see Fig 3A), wherein movement of the cartridge receiver from the open position to the closed position causes an imaging device (barcode scanner 301, [0056], Fig 3A) located on the cartridge receiver to move relative to the beverage cartridge (see Fig 3A), and
De Vreede et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: wherein as the cartridge receiver is moved from the open position toward the closed position and has not yet entirely closed, a trigger detects when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed and causes the imaging device to capture an image of a portion of the beverage cartridge.
Abdoo et al. teach a beverage preparation machine (510 generally refers to a household appliance, [0055], Fig 1. Note: “a beverage dispensing system” taught by De Vreede et al. already), comprising: a controller (a processor 670 that cooperates with the object recognition system 672, [0082], Figs 1 and 8. Note: “controller” taught by De Vreede et al. already), and wherein as the cartridge receiver is moved from the open position toward the closed position and has not yet entirely closed, a trigger (motion sensors 650, [0077], Figs 1-7. Note: “a trigger” taught by De Vreede et al. a light sensor 32, [0053], Fig 2 already) detects when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed (650 “is capable of “detects when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed” as claimed) and causes the imaging device to capture an image of a portion of the beverage cartridge (object recognition system 672, [0067], the system can be configured to be capable of sensing the speed of each door 526 as each door 526 moves between the open and closed positions 528, 530. Such a sensing operation can be done through motion sensors 650, [0077]. Note: barcode scanner 301 shines light onto the consumable 4 during the closing movement of lid 2, [0056], Fig 3A, taught by De Vreede et al. already). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Vreede et al. with Abdoo et al.’s further teaching of wherein as the cartridge receiver is moved from the open position toward the closed position and has not yet entirely closed, a trigger detects when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed and causes the imaging device to capture an image of a portion of the beverage cartridge; because Abdoo et al. teach, in Para. [0077] of providing an excellent sensing device capable of sensing the speed of each door while moves between the open and closed positions for operational safety during processing.
Claims 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vreede et al. in view of Abdoo et al. applied to claim 42, and further in view of Hayakawa (US 2010/0181378).
Regarding Claims 44-45, De Vreede et al. in view Abdoo et al. teach the invention as claimed and discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 44-45.
Hayakawa further teaches a beverage preparation machine (BEVERAGE MAKER, see Title), and Claim 44, wherein the controller (a circuit board 22, [0020]; "the
controller'' taught by De Vreede et al. already) is configured to turn the lighting element on when the cartridge receiver is in the open position (two LEDs 26, 26 are mounted on the circuit board 22 so as to project light to the left (in FIG. 5), to illuminate the barcode, [0020]; Circuit board 22 contains a drive circuit for the sensor 14, a signal processing circuit, a barcode pattern allows t11e circuit, an LED drive circuit and a control circuit, [0021]); Claim 45 wherein the controller (a circuit board 22, [0020]) is configured to tum the lighting element off when the cartridge receiver ("the cartridge receiver" taught by De Vreede et al. already) is in the open position (two LEDs 26, 26 are mounted on the circuit board 22 so as to project light to the left (in FIG. 5), to illuminate the barcode, [0020]; Circuit board 22 contains a drive circuit for the sensor 14, a signal processing circuit, a bar code pattern allows the circuit, an LED drive circuit and a control circuit, [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify De Vreede et al. in view of Abdoo et al. applied to claim 42, with Hayakawa's further teaching of Claims 44-45; because Hayakawa teaches, in Para. [0021], of providing an excellent activating/deactivating system to control the LEDs, which would prevent them from being activated the entire time the beverage machine is in use.
Claims 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vreede et al. in view of Abdoo et al. applied to claim 46, and further in view of Rognon et al. (US 2012/0295234 A1).
Regarding Claims 48-50, De Vreede et al. in view Abdoo et al. teach the invention as claimed and discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 48-50.
Rognon et al. teach a beverage preparation machine (a beverage producing device 20, [0087], Fig 1) with a controller (a control unit 10, [0082], Fig 3), and: Claim 48, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the decoded information to a remote computer (additional information contained in a memory of the control unit or information retrieved by the communication unit 19 from a remote data base, [0090]). Claim 49, further comprising a memory configured to store data, wherein the controller is configured to store the decoded information in the memory when the beverage preparation machine is not connected to a network, and wherein the controller is configured to transmit the decoded information to a remote computer when the beverage preparation machine has established network connectivity (The programs and algorithms may include decoding applications for the camera, [0082]; additional information contained in a memory of the control unit or information retrieved by the communication unit 19 from a remote data base, [0090]). Claim 50, wherein the controller is configured to discard the decoded information after the beverage preparation machine has established network connectivity (additional information contained in a memory of the control unit or information retrieved by the communication unit 19 from a remote data base, [0090]. Clearly, the control unit is capable of "discard the decoded information after the beverage preparation machine has established network connectivity" as claimed). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/ add De Vreede et al. in view of Abdoo et al. with Rognon et al.'s further teaching of Claims 48-50; because Rognon et al. teach, in Abstract, of providing excellent information to a user from a capsule for the preparation of a beverage in a beverage producing device for operation convenience during processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding claims 36 and 56, namely “I. Abdoo is non-analogous art to the Present Application: First, Applicant respectfully submits that Abdoo is non-analogous art, and thus is not a proper reference for use in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Second, Applicant respectfully submits that Abdoo fails the "reasonably pertinent" test. Applicant respectfully submits that Abdoo is not reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved in the Present Application. II. The cited portions of Abdoo do not disclose a trigger configured to detect when a refrigerator door is being closed and is not yet entirely closed wherein the controller controls the imaging device to capture the image according to the trigger. Abdoo at [0077] only discloses sensing that the doors are in motion, and does not disclose sensing that the doors are being closed. Additionally, [0077] of Abdoo states that "it is contemplated that each door 526 of a French door refrigerator can be configured to take a picture of the opposing French door 526 as the doors 526 are moved to a fully open position" (emphasis added). Applicant therefore respectfully submits that [0077] of Abdoo does not inherently or expressly disclose, nor does it render obvious, "a trigger configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed, wherein the controller controls the imaging device to capture the image according to the trigger", as recited in claim 36” and “Claim 56 recites "wherein as the cartridge receiver is moved from the open position toward the closed position and has not yet entirely closed, a trigger detects when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed and causes the imaging device to capture an image of a portion of the beverage cartridge", and was rejected as obvious over De Vreede in view of Abdoo under similar rationale as claim 36. Accordingly, for reasons which should be apparent in view of the arguments presented above regarding claim 36, Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination of De Vreede and Abdoo is improper, and that even if the proposed combination were made, the proposed combination would not inherently or expressly disclose, nor would it render obvious, each and every limitation of claim 56”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of De Vreede et al. (US 2016/0309951 A 1) in view of Abdoo et al. (US 2018/0239319 A1) teach exactly a beverage preparation machine as claimed. Fully disclosed all the limitations cited in independent claim 36 and independent claim 56 respectively as shown above; it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, under claim 36, the purpose of bring in Abdoo et al. is to modify the device of De Vreede et al. with Abdoo et al.’s further teaching of a trigger configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed, wherein the controller controls the imaging device to capture the image according to the trigger; for the purpose of providing an excellent sensing device capable of sensing the speed of each door while moves between the open and closed positions for operational safety during processing (Para. [0077]); under claim 56, the purpose of bring in Abdoo et al. is to modify the device of De Vreede et al. with Abdoo et al.’s further teaching of a trigger configured to detect when the cartridge receiver is being closed and is not yet entirely closed, wherein the controller controls the imaging device to capture the image according to the trigger; for the purpose of providing an excellent sensing device capable of sensing the speed of each door while moves between the open and closed positions for operational safety during processing (Para. [0077]); Abdoo et al. is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. The applicant's invention, directed to a machine (apparatus), is defined by its structure; while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection. During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”; see MPEP 2173.01(I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights