DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on February 12, 2026, which has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-19 are subject to examination. Claims 2 and 14 have been canceled.
Proposed Replacement Drawing Sheet
The proposed replacement drawing sheet filed on June 2, 2025 has been disapproved by the examiner and will not be entered because it fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line, and the ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view. Thus, in amended Fig. 25, the ends of the section line should be designated by Arabic numerals “26” instead of the letters “A”.
The proposed replacement drawing sheet filed on October 28, 2024 has been disapproved by the examiner and will not be entered because:
It fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) for the same reasons given above.
It fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3). Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word “Amended” at the bottom of that figure. Further, amending the original or printed patent drawing sheets by physically changing or altering them is not permitted. See MPEP 1413.
Application Data Sheet
The corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on June 2, 2025 is defective because it fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.76(c). A corrected ADS must identify the information that is being changed, with underlining for insertions, and strike-through or brackets for text removed. Thus, in applicant’s corrected ADS, the added Domestic Benefit Information must be underlined. Proper correction of the ADS is required.
Correction of Filing Receipt
Since the corrected ADS filed on June 2, 2025 includes changes to the Domestic Benefit Information, the Filing Receipt mailed on September 12, 2022 fails to identify the correct data for this application. As explained in section II of MPEP 601.05(a), a corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt unless accompanied by a request to take some other action, such as a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c), or a request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48. Accordingly, the applicant should file a request for a corrected filing receipt in order to have the corrected data entered by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
Objections to Amendments – Informalities
The amendments to the specification filed on October 28, 2024 and June 2, 2025 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1), (d) and (g). Amendments to the specification must be made by submission of the entire text of any added (new) or rewritten (amended) paragraph. The precise point in the specification where any added or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified. Matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in single brackets, and matter to be added by reissue must be underlined. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification in effect as of the filing date of the reissue application.
The amendments to the specification filed on October 28, 2024 are improper because the abbreviations “C2, L59-67”, “C3, L1-5” and “C8; L48-61” fail to clearly identify the precise point in the specification where the rewritten paragraphs are located. Applicant should use “col.” or “column” in place of “C”, and “lines” or “ll.” in place of “L”.
The amendments to the specification filed on June 2, 2025 are improper because they include numerous changes relative to the patent specification that are not shown by the required single brackets and underlining. For example:
The heading is improperly changed from “RELATED APPLICATIONS” to “RELATED U.S. APPLICATION DATA” without showing the changes made via the required single brackets and underlining.
“application Ser. No.” has been changed to “Patent Application No.” without showing the changes made via the required single brackets and underlining.
“Oct.” and “Mar.” have been changed to “October” and “March” without showing the changes made via the required single brackets and underlining.
Punctuation has been changed without showing the changes made via the required single brackets and underlining.
A space has been improperly introduced in “61 /785,246”.
The amendments to the claims filed on February 12, 2026 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and (g). Claim amendments must include the entire text of each claim being changed. Matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in single brackets, and matter to be added by reissue must be underlined. All amendments must be made relative to the patent claims in effect as of the filing date of the reissue application.
The amendments to the claims filed on February 12, 2026 are improper because:
They show changes relative to a prior claim amendment rather than relative to the patent claims. All changes must be shown—via the required single brackets and underlining—relative to the patent claims in effect as of the filing date of the reissue application.
They include strikethrough, which is not permitted in reissue applications.
They include double brackets, which are not permitted in reissue applications.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) in response to this Office action.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 10,760,568 B2, which issued from US Application No. 15/676,624, which was a continuation-in-part (CIP) of US Application No. 15/296,993. Since a CIP adds to the disclosure of the earlier application, the “original disclosure” is the disclosure of US Application No. 15/676,624 as filed on August 14, 2017. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during the examination of the instant reissue application or during the earlier-concluded examination of US Application No. 15/676,624 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”
35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
New Matter Added During Earlier-Concluded Examination
New matter was improperly added to the disclosure during the earlier examination of US Application No. 15/676,624. See the detailed explanation that follows.
The amendment filed on April 11, 2018 added new claim 15, which recited the limitation “the windows are substantially square”. When US Application No. 15/676,624 was allowed, claim 15 was renumbered as patent claim 9. Claim 9, as amended in this reissue application, still recites the limitation “the windows are substantially square”. According to the original disclosure, the guide 170 has a window opening on each of its four sides, and the windows 186 (or window openings) are formed between the legs 178 of the guide. While the original disclosure describes the guide 170 as having a substantially square flow portal 188 formed inside its generally/substantially square base 180, there is no support in the original disclosure for the windows 186 (or window openings) being substantially square. Figs. 23-24 appear to show the windows 186 (or window openings) as having a substantially isosceles-trapezoidal shape with rounded corners. Such an illustration fails to provide support for the limitation “the windows are substantially square”.
The amendment filed on April 11, 2018 added new claim 19, which recited the limitation “a facet at the bottom of each leg, forming a chamfered edge between sequential beams”. When US Application No. 15/676,624 was allowed, claim 19 was renumbered as patent claim 15. Claim 15, as amended in this reissue application, still recites the limitation “a facet at the bottom of each leg, forming a chamfered edge between sequential beams”. According to the original disclosure, the guide’s base 180 has facets 182 formed at the bottom of each leg 178, the base 180 is comprised of two pairs of beams 184, and the facets 182 may be chamfered edges between beams 184. However, there is no support in the original disclosure for one or more of the facets “forming a chamfered edge between sequential beams”.
For these reasons, the amendments made in US Application No. 15/676,624 violated the prohibition of new matter under 35 USC 132(a).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
New Matter Added During Present Examination
The amendment filed in the instant application on February 12, 2026 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the following reasons.
Claim 17 is amended to recite “a window opening formed adjacent to each of the legs”. According to the original disclosure, the guide 170 has a window opening on each of its four sides, and the windows 186 (or window openings) are formed between the legs 178 of the guide. As shown in Figs. 23-24, each window 186 (or window opening) is adjacent to two of the legs 178. There is no support in the original disclosure for one or more of the windows 186 being “adjacent to each of the legs”. The examiner suggests that claim 17 be amended in a manner similar to that of claim 4.
For these reasons, the amendment filed in the instant application on February 12, 2026 violates the prohibition of new matter under both 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being improperly broadened outside the two-year statutory period. Applicant’s failure to unequivocally indicate a desire to seek broadened claims within two years of the patent grant bars a subsequent attempt to broaden the claims after the two-year limit. See MPEP 1412.03(IV). It is not sufficient to merely file a reissue application within two years from the patent grant. An unequivocal intent to broaden must be established within the two-year limit. In this case, the reissue declaration filed on August 31, 2022 did not state an intent to broaden the patent claims, and no other paper filed within the two-year limit included an unequivocal indication of an intent to broaden the patent claims. Thus, the proposal for broadened claims was not made within two years from the grant of the original patent, and the public was not notified that broadened claims were being sought until after the two-year period elapsed.
A claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects. In this case:
Amended claim 1 is broader than original patent claim 1 because amended claim 1 does not require the limitations “a guide…having a central portion on its upper end” and “the guide central portion centered on the retaining pin beneath the valve” that are found in patent claim 1. Thus, amended claim 1 is broader than patent claim 1 in these respects even though it is narrower in other respects.
Dependent claims 3-13 are broader than patent claim 1 in the same respects as amended claim 1.
Amended claim 15 is broader than original patent claim 15 because amended claim 15 does not require the limitations “a guide…having a central portion on its upper end”, “the guide central portion centered on the retaining pin beneath the valve” and “four legs extending downward from the upper portion to the base” that are found in patent claim 15. Thus, amended claim 15 is broader than patent claim 15 in these respects even though it is narrower in other respects.
Dependent claims 16-19 are broader than patent claim 15 in the same respects as amended claim 15.
GROUND 2: Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because it introduces new matter into the application for reissue. See the explanation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 9, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above.
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the term “the guide central portion” (l. 12) lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, the term “each window opening” (l. 4) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, this term is inconsistent with the previous introduction of “a plurality of windows” (l. 3). It is unclear whether windows or window openings are required.
Claim 1 recites “a central aperture on an upper end of the guide” (l. 8) and “the guide central portion” (l. 12). Claim 6 goes on to recite “the guide further comprising: a circular top” (ll. 1-2). It is unclear how the “circular top” of claim 6 relates to the “upper end” and “guide central portion” of claim 1. Claim 6 inaccurately suggests that the “circular top” is distinct from and added to the structure required by claim 1. Thus, claim 6 fails to accurately characterize the invention as it is described in the specification.
Claim 9 recites “between two adjacent legs” (l. 3). This subject matter is indefinite because it is unclear whether the legs referred to in claim 9 are the same as the legs introduced in claim 6, or whether the legs referred to in claim 9 are different from the legs of claim 6. The examiner suggests that claim 9 be amended in a manner similar to that of claim 4.
In claim 9, the term “the windows” (l. 4) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, this term is inconsistent with the previous introduction of “a plurality of window openings” (l. 2). It is unclear whether windows or window openings are required.
Claim 9 recites “the windows are substantially square” (l. 4). According to the original disclosure, the guide 170 has a window opening on each of its four sides, and the windows 186 (or window openings) are formed between the legs 178 of the guide. While the original disclosure describes the guide 170 as having a substantially square flow portal 188 formed inside its generally/substantially square base 180, the specification does not describe the windows 186 (or window openings) as being substantially square. Figs. 23-24 appear to show the windows 186 (or window openings) as having a substantially isosceles-trapezoidal shape with rounded corners. Thus, claim 9 fails to accurately characterize the invention as it is described in the specification and illustrated in the drawings.
Claim 13 recites “alternating facets and beams” (l. 2). This subject matter is indefinite because it is unclear whether the beams referred to in claim 13 are the same as the beams introduced in claim 10, or whether the beams referred to in claim 13 are different from the beams of claim 10.
Claim 15 recites “a facet at the bottom of each leg, forming a chamfered edge between sequential beams”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it requires a single chamfered edge or plural chamfered edge (one per facet). Further, this recitation is indefinite because it appears to inaccurately encompass a single chamfered edge formed by more than one facet. In addition, this recitation fails to accurately characterize the invention as it is described in the specification. The specification states that the facets may be chamfered edges. It does not state that they form chamfered edges.
Claim 17 recites “a window opening formed adjacent to each of the legs”. This recitation fails to accurately characterize the invention as it is described in the specification. According to the specification, the guide 170 has a window opening on each of its four sides, and the windows 186 (or window openings) are formed between the legs 178 of the guide. As shown in Figs. 23-24, each window 186 (or window opening) is adjacent to two of the legs 178. There is no description of one or more of the windows 186 being “adjacent to each of the legs”. The examiner suggests that claim 17 be amended in a manner similar to that of claim 4.
Claim 19 recites “alternating facets and beams” (l. 2). This subject matter is indefinite because it is unclear whether the beams referred to in claim 19 are the same as the beams introduced in claim 15, or whether the beams referred to in claim 19 are different from the beams of claim 15.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Akeyson et al.”
US Patent No. 1,654,772
“Hallmark”
GB Publication No. 1 300 086
“Hampton et al.”
US Patent No. 1,721,114
“Leathers”
US Patent No. 3,483,885
“Mason”
GB Publication No. 401,667
“SDC”
GB Publication No. 547,196 (to Specialities Development Corporation)
“Shellman”
US Patent No. 2,745,631
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Akeyson et al. teaches a valve assembly comprising: a retaining pin 7 having a retaining cap (or wider upper portion); a retainer 8 centered on the retaining pin 7 beneath the retaining cap; a valve 25 centered on the retaining pin 7 beneath the retainer 8; an insert 26 centered on the valve 25 and beneath the retainer 8; and a guide 16 having (i) a circular top (upper portion) with a central portion centered on the retaining pin 7 beneath the valve 25, and (ii) legs extending downward from the circular top.
Hallmark teaches a valve assembly comprising: a retaining pin 46; a retainer 45 centered on the retaining pin 46; a valve 49 centered on the retaining pin 46 beneath the retainer 45; an insert 63 centered on the valve 49 and beneath the retainer 45; and the retaining pin 46 having an expanded end face (rivet) formed on its lower end (when in a rotated orientation) to secure the valve assembly together.
Hampton et al. teaches a valve assembly comprising: a retaining pin 11 having a retaining cap 12; a retainer 16 centered on the retaining pin 11 beneath the retaining cap 12; a valve 20 centered on the retaining pin 11 beneath the retainer 16; an insert 17 centered on the valve 20 and beneath the retainer 16; and a guide 8 having (i) a circular top (upper portion) with a central portion centered on the retaining pin 11 beneath the valve 20, and (ii) legs extending downward from the circular top.
Leathers teaches a valve assembly comprising: a retaining pin 25 having a retaining cap 28; a valve 50 centered on the retaining pin 25; an insert 60 centered on the valve 50; a guide 32 having (i) a circular top (upper portion) 33 with a central portion centered on the retaining pin 25 beneath the valve 50, and (ii) legs 21 extending downward from the circular top 33; a spacer 42 located between the circular top 33 and a fastener 38 threaded on the retaining pin 25.
Mason teaches a valve assembly comprising a guide (see Figs. 1, 1A and 2) having a circular bottom (which could be a top in an inverted orientation), a transition extending downward from the top, a continuous base, and four legs extending downward from the top to the base. The valve assembly also comprises a rivet (see Fig. 2E) that is secured to the guide (see Figs. 1, 1A and 2) by a screw (see p. 3, ll. 5-11). The valve assembly further comprises a retainer (see Fig. 2D) centered on the rivet (see Fig. 2E), a valve (see Fig. 2B) centered on the rivet (see Fig. 2E), and an insert (see Fig. 2A or Fig. 2C) centered on the valve (see Fig. 2B).
SDC teaches a valve assembly comprising: a retaining pin 18 having a retaining cap 17; a retainer 2 centered on the retaining pin 18 beneath (when in an inverted orientation) the retaining cap 17; a valve 1 centered on the retaining pin 18; a guide 19 having a circular top (when in an inverted orientation) with a central portion centered on the retaining pin 18; and the retaining pin 18 having an expanded end face (rivet) 23 formed on its lower end (when in an inverted orientation) to secure the valve assembly together.
Shellman teaches a valve assembly comprising: a retaining pin 27 having a retaining cap 38; a retainer 26 centered on the retaining pin 27 beneath the retaining cap 38; a valve 31 centered on the retaining pin 27 beneath the retainer 26; an insert 32 centered on the valve 31 and beneath the retainer 26; and a guide having (i) a circular top (upper portion) 40 with a central portion centered on the retaining pin 27 beneath the valve 31, and (ii) legs 140 extending downward from the circular top 40.
Allowable Subject Matter
While currently subject to rejection, claim 1 is considered to recite allowable subject matter because the cited prior art fails to teach a valve assembly, including the combination of elements defined in claim 1, and comprising: the retaining pin having an expanded end face formed on its lower end to secure the valve assembly together; a guide having a generally truncated pyramid shape and further having a central portion with a central aperture; and a spacer located between the guide central portion and the expanded end face of the retaining pin.
While currently subject to rejection, claim 15 is considered to recite allowable subject matter because the cited prior art fails to teach a valve assembly, including the combination of elements defined in claim 15, and comprising: the retaining pin having an expanded end face formed on its lower end to secure the valve assembly together; and a guide having (i) a generally truncated pyramid shape, (ii) four legs extending downward from an upper portion to a continuous base, and (iii) a facet at the bottom of each leg in the form of a chamfered edge between sequential beams.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 4, l. 7, “line A-A” should read “line [A-A] 5-5”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 4, l. 10, “at A-A” should read “at [A-A] 5-5”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 4, ll. 32-33, “at B-B” should read “at [B-B] 14-14”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 4, l. 62, “line A-A” should read “line [A-A] 26-26”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 4, l. 65, “at A-A” should read “at [A-A] 26-26”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 5, l. 42, “line A-A” should read “line [A-A] 5-5”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 5, l. 44, “at A-A” should read “at [A-A] 5-5”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 5, l. 62, “head 22” is inconsistent with “base 22” at col. 5, l. 61 and col. 5, l. 66.
At col. 6, l. 30, “top surface 34” should read “a top surface [34]”. Note that reference number 34 is used to designate the stabilizers (col. 6, ll. 30-31).
At col. 6, l. 32, “top surface 40” should read “the top surface [40]”. Note that reference number 40 is used to designate the central portion (col. 6, l. 40 and col. 7, ll. 3-4).
At col. 7, l. 39, “top surface 62” should read “top surface [62] 68”. See col. 7, l. 17.
At col. 7, l. 50, “at B-B” should read “at [B-B] 14-14”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 9, l. 1, “(see FIG. 7)” should read “(see FIG. [7] 22)”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 9, ll. 45-46, “a spherical segment (not shown) or a conical segment” is inaccurate. No conical segment is shown in the drawings. Figs. 23-24 appear to show a spherical segment.
At col. 10, l. 27, “line A-A” should read “line [A-A] 26-26”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 10, l. 30, “at A-A” should read “at [A-A] 26-26”. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Appropriate correction of the patent specification is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Specifically, the drawings fail to show “the transition being a conical segment” (claim 12). This claimed feature must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are also objected to because:
Fig. 4 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line, and the ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view. Thus, in Fig. 4, the ends of the section line should be designated by Arabic numerals “5” instead of the letters “A”.
Fig. 13 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). In Fig. 13, the ends of the section line should be designated by Arabic numerals “14” instead of the letters “B”.
Fig. 25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). In Fig. 25, the ends of the section line should be designated by Arabic numerals “26” instead of the letters “A”.
In Fig. 25, reference number “130” should be changed to “140”. See Fig. 26.
The objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 12, 2026 have been considered. A majority of applicant’s arguments are not germane to the new grounds of rejection set forth above. With respect to the new matter recited in claim 17, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because applicant did not amend claim 17 in the same manner as claim 4.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.