DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 December 2025 by the applicant has been considered and is included in the file.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 1, 7 and 14 and dependent claims 3, 11 and 15-16 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 02 March 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Prior rejections of claims 16 and 17 under USC § 112(b) have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
The prior objection to claim 15 regarding a minor informality was not discussed in the Remarks, and therefore is repeated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 7-8, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) (Parsons et al., hereinafter Parsons, US 20050062004 A1) and independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Wegelin et al., hereinafter Wegelin, US 20150206415 A1 in view of Parsons) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an elastomeric gasket) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments indicate that that Parsons, regarding claims 1 and 7, and Wegelin in view of Parsons, regarding claim 14, do not teach the amended limitations presented with the arguments. Parsons is silent on the specific material in which the housings, lens housings, hoods and flanges are made of other than commenting that they may be separate materials or that they should be opaque to reduce crosstalk and noise within the system ([0101], [0169]). Wegelin does not teach the components such as flanges or housings, and therefore cannot speak to the materials of these.
Applicant’s arguments indicate that the use of the hoods/housings of Parsons do not meet the requirements of “gaskets” based on being inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (Remarks, pg. 8). While the examiner notes that the hoods/housings of Parsons are not explicitly taught as seals, Parsons does teach additional components that act as seals (flanges), and the specification of the instant application indicate that the purpose of the gaskets are to both prevent crosstalk ([0033]) and may be elastomeric, felt, or configured as a barrier to prevent material from entering the system ([0041]). The housing and flanges of Parsons perform all of these and therefore teach this limitation. As seen below, the rejections have been updated to reflect the amended limitation indicating the gaskets are “elastomeric”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 13-15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12 includes “with the outer face”; this should read “with the planar outer face…” to align with the amended limitation which changes “an outer face” to be “a planar outer face”.
Claim 5, lines 1-2 includes “beyond an outer face of the lens carrier”; this should read “beyond the planar outer face…” to align with amended claim 1.
Claim 7, line 14 includes “with the outer face”; this should read “with the planar outer face…” to align with the amended limitation which changes “an outer face” to be “a planar outer face”.
Claim 13, line 1-2 includes “beyond an outer face of the lens carrier”; this should read “beyond the planar outer face…” to align with amended claim 7.
Claim 14, line 9 includes “with the outer face”; this should read “with the planar outer face…” to align with the amended limitation which changes “an outer face” to be “a planar outer face”.
Claim 15, line includes “”
Claim 15, line 8 includes “off a target object…” should read “off the object…” to align with “the object” introduced in claim 14 and previously noted in the Non-Final Rejection dated 04 December 2025, as there is no indication in the specification that there are separate ‘objects’ and ‘target objects’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the top layer" in line 3, and “the bottom layer” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is are no layers introduced in claim 1 (to which claim 3 is dependent upon). As written, these limitations are unclear whether these layers are part of another component or a new component in the vicinity of other components. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted that the layers are the previously introduced portions of the blocker element, and reads as “the first portion is arranged between the first lens and the second lens; and wherein the second portion comprises the portion of the gaster position between the first sensor and the second sensor.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the top layer" in line 3, and “the bottom layer” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is are no layers introduced in claim 7 (to which claim 11 is dependent upon). As written, these limitations are unclear whether these layers are part of another component or a new component in the vicinity of other components. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted that the layers are the previously introduced portions of the blocker element, and reads as “the first portion is arranged between the first lens and the second lens; and wherein the second portion comprises the portion of the gaster position between the first sensor and the second sensor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al. (hereinafter Parsons, US 20050062004 A1) in view of Gannon et al. (hereinafter Gannon, US 20070228306 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Parsons teaches a sensor system ([0013]), comprising:
a housing ([0084], [0099]; Fig. 2A housing (144), flusher housing (146));
a lens carrier having a planar outer face ([0099], [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A, front circuit-housing piece (116) or (116') hold lenses along one direction), the lens carrier including a first lens and a second lens coupled thereto ([0099], [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A, transmitter-lens (136) or (136') and receiver-lens (152) or (152'));
a first sensor comprising an emitter, the first sensor positioned in the housing ([0098]; Figs. 2A, 6A emitting diode (132));
a second sensor comprising a receiver, the second sensor positioned in the housing and proximate the first sensor ([0098]; Figs. 2A, 6A photodiode (154));
a gasket at least partially disposed around each of the first sensor and the second sensor, a first portion of the gasket positioned between the first sensor and the second sensor ([0100]; Figs. 2A, 6A hoods (134) and (156) surround emitting diode (132) and photodiode (154) and have portions between the two sensors to block stray emissions);
and a blocker element, wherein a first portion of the blocker element extends into the lens carrier so as to be flush with the outer face, and a second portion of the blocker element is positioned between and coplanar with the first sensor and the second sensor, ([0100] - [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A opaque stop (162) or (172) is positioned between sensors (132) and (154)),
wherein the lens carrier is coupleable to the housing such that the lens carrier is at least partially disposed within the housing and the first lens is arranged over the first sensor and the second lens is arranged over the second sensor ([0009]; Figs. 2A, 6A transmitter-lens (136) or (136') focuses emitted light from emitting diode (132) and receiver lends (152) or (152') focuses received light onto photodiode (154), and lens carrier (116) or (116') is coupled to housing (144)),
wherein the emitter is configured to emit an infrared signal through the first lens, such that the emitted infrared signal reflects off a target object and through the second lens and is received by the receiver ([0013], [0099]),
and wherein the blocker element is configured to obstruct signal crosstalk between the first sensor and the second sensor ([0100]).
Parsons is silent on the specific material in which the housings, lens housings, hoods and flanges are comprised of.
Gannon teaches an optical reading device which comprises a sensor array, an illumination generator and a housing with components such as lenses, with gaskets within the sensors positioned near lens assemblies/carriers, where the gaskets are elastomeric in nature ([0024]; Fig. 2b where gasket (30) which provides a seal between a lens housing (42) and an optical plate (26), where the gasket may be flexible or compliant material such as an elastomer to act as a seal between the plate and housing).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Parsons to incorporate the teachings of Gannon to use specifically elastomeric materials for flanges, seals and connections between components in a sensor housing with a reasonable expectation of success. Parsons notes that components of the sensor system such as housings, lens housings, hoods and flanges may be formed of similar, or differing, materials, and indicates that they are optimally opaque to reduce crosstalk and noise within the system ([0101], [0169]). It is well known that system components such as housings, holders, hoods and cases which surround sensor systems should utilize materials which additionally act to prevent contaminants such as dust and water from entering the device, which will ultimately reduce the lifetime or functionality of the sensor system.
Regarding claim 2, Parsons as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 1, wherein
the portion of the gasket positioned between the first sensor and the second sensor comprises the blocker element ([0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A where stop (172) or stop (162) is positioned between hoods (156) and (134)).
Regarding claim 3, Parsons as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 1, wherein
the top layer is arranged between the first lens and the second lens ([0101]; Fig. 6A, where blinders (170) can be formed integrally with front circuit-housing part (116') and extend beyond (116') and lens rim (164) between lenses (136') and (152'));
and the bottom layer comprises the portion of the gasket positioned between the first sensor and the second sensor ([0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A where front circuit-housing part (116') may be formed integrally with stop (172) or stop (162), and positioned between hoods (156) and (134)).
Regarding claim 4, Parsons as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 1, wherein
the lens carrier is constructed from an opaque material ([0101], where front circuit housing piece (116') may be formed from opaque material).
Regarding claim 5, Parsons as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 1, wherein
the blocker element extends beyond an outer face of the lens carrier ([0101]; Fig. 6A, where blinders (170) can be formed integrally with front circuit-housing part (116') and extend beyond (116') and lens rim (164)) .
Regarding claim 6, Parsons as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 1, the gasket comprising:
a shell structure configured to contain the first sensor and the second sensor therein, the gasket including a first aperture aligned with the first sensor and a second aperture aligned with the second sensor ([0013], [0100] - [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A hoods (134) and (156) surround emitting diode (132) and photodiode (154) and have portions between the two sensors to block stray emissions, with exception of apertures such as flange (166) to hold lens (136') over aperture (160), and where receiver lens is mounted similarly).
Regarding claim 7, Parsons teaches a system, comprising:
an apparatus ([0072], [0078]; Figs. 1, 1A, 4);
and a sensor arrangement ([0013]), which includes all limitations as included in claim 1.
Therefore, Claim 7 is similarly rejected to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Parsons as modified above teaches the system of claim 7, wherein
the apparatus comprises a faucet ([0005], [0088]; Fig. 3 or 4, where sensor and valve may be used in a faucet embodiment).
Claim 10 is similarly rejected to claim 2.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected to claim 3.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected to claim 4.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al. (hereinafter Parsons, US 20050062004 A1) view of Gannon et al. (hereinafter Gannon, US 20070228306 A1), and further in view of Parsons et al. (hereinafter ‘923, US 20100269923 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Parsons as modified above teaches the system of claim 7.
Parsons and Gannon are silent on the exact range of detection.
‘923 teaches an electronic faucet which includes a housing, and transceiver, where the apparatus (in this case, an electronic faucet) is operable when the target object is introduced within about four inches of the sensor arrangement ([0144] - [0146]; Fig. 1, 9, where IR emitter (804) and sensor (806) have detection distance set to sensitivity of 7.5 inches initially).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Parsons to incorporate the teachings of ‘923 to set a detection range to include approximately 4 inches for object detection near an apparatus such as a faucet with a reasonable expectation of success. Both 4 and 7.5 inches are within standard ranges surrounding a faucet and sink, and can be approximated to be of similar ranges, noting that the detection distance of ‘923 can be adjusted to be closer based on measurements ([0144]). It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegelin et al. (hereinafter Wegelin, US 20150206415 A1), in view of Parsons et al. (hereinafter Parsons, US 20050062004 A1) and further in view of Gannon et al. (hereinafter Gannon, US 20070228306 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wegelin teaches a sensor system comprising:
a first sensor arrangement including a pair of infrared sensors ([0033], [0040], where one or more passive sensors may be passive infrared sensors);
a second sensor arrangement including an emitter and a receiver ([0032], where the active sensor includes an emitter and a receiver);
wherein the first sensor arrangement is maintained in an operable, powered-on state and wherein the second sensor arrangement is maintained in an unpowered sleep state, the sensor system configured to cause the second sensor arrangement to be switched to an operable, powered- on state in response to detection by the first sensor arrangement of presence of an object ([0006], [0031]; Fig. 1, where passive sensor is invoked to send a wakeup signal (104) to active sensor currently in a sleep state in response to detection of a presence of an object by passive sensor),
wherein the emitter is configured to emit an infrared signal, such that the emitted infrared signal reflects off the object and is received by the receiver so as to control operation of an apparatus associated with the sensor system ([0032] - [0033]; Fig. 3A where active sensor may detect motion and/or distance of an object via emission/reception of infrared light).
Wegelin is silent on the specific format of the second sensor arrangement beyond it comprising an emitter and a receiver in a transceiver structure, and the structures of the sensor system having components such as a lens carrier, a blocker element, and an elastomeric gasket.
Parsons teaches sensor system, which includes
a lens carrier having a planar outer face ([0099], [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A, front circuit-housing piece (116) or (116') hold lenses along one direction), the lens carrier including a first lens and a second lens coupled thereto ([0099], [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A, transmitter-lens (136) or (136') and receiver-lens (152) or (152'));
a gasket operably coupled to at least the second sensor arrangement, the gasket configured to provide a mechanical blockage between the emitter and the receiver so as to limit signal crosstalk in the sensor system ([0100]; Figs. 2A, 6A hoods (134) and (156) surround emitting diode (132) and photodiode (154) and have portions between the two sensors to block stray emissions);
a blocker element ([0100] - [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A opaque stop (162) or (172) is positioned between sensors (132) and (154)), including:
a top layer extending into the lens carrier so as to be flush with the outer face ([0101]; Fig. 6A, where blinders (170) can be formed integrally with front circuit-housing part (116') and extend beyond (116') and lens rim (164) between lenses (136') and (152'));
and a bottom layer arranged between and coplanar with the emitter and the receiver ([0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A where front circuit-housing part (116') may be formed integrally with stop (172) or stop (162), and positioned between hoods (156) and (134)).
Gannon teaches an optical reading device which comprises a sensor array, an illumination generator and a housing with components such as lenses, with gaskets within the sensors positioned near lens assemblies/carriers, where the gaskets are elastomeric in nature ([0024]; Fig. 2b where gasket (30) which provides a seal between a lens housing (42) and an optical plate (26), where the gasket may be flexible or compliant material such as an elastomer to act as a seal between the plate and housing).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Wegelin to incorporate the teachings of Parsons to utilize a transceiver (emitter/receiver pair) with specific characteristics, such as a gasket surrounding the emitter/receiver pair, and to incorporate the teachings of Gannon to use specifically elastomeric materials for flanges, seals and connections between components in a sensor housing with a reasonable expectation of success. Wegelin notes that the active sensors may take various forms, such as time-of-flight measurement devices ([0006]), and integration of the specific sensor of Parsons into the sensor system of Wegelin would have a predictable result of reducing crosstalk between the emitter and receiver of the active sensor. Parsons notes that components of the sensor system such as housings, lens housings, hoods and flanges may be formed of similar, or differing, materials, and indicates that they are optimally opaque to reduce crosstalk and noise within the system ([0101], [0169]). It is well known that system components such as housings, holders, hoods and cases which surround sensor systems should utilize materials which additionally act to prevent contaminants such as dust and water from entering the device, which will ultimately reduce the lifetime or functionality of the sensor system.
Regarding claim 15, Wegelin as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 14, which includes a sensor housing which may comprise all passive and active sensors ([0033]).
Wegelin is silent on the specific format of the second sensor arrangement (the active sensor pair) beyond it comprising an emitter and a receiver in a transceiver structure.
Parsons teaches that a lens carrier coupled to the housing and having an outer face ([0099], [0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A, front circuit-housing piece (116) or (116') hold lenses), and first, second, third and fourth lenses, the lens carrier coupleable to the housing such that the lens carrier is at least partially disposed within the housing and such that the first and second lenses are arranged over the infrared sensors, the third lens is arranged over the emitter and the fourth lens is arranged over the receiver ([0009]; Figs. 2A, 6A transmitter-lens (136) or (136') focuses emitted light from emitting diode (132) and receiver lends (152) or (152') focuses received light onto photodiode (154), and lens carrier (116) or (116') is coupled to housing (144)),
wherein the emitter is configured to emit an infrared signal through the third lens, such that the emitted infrared signal reflects off a target object and through the fourth lens and is received by the receiver ([0013], [0099]).
Parsons does not explicitly include four lenses but does indicate each sensor is paired with a lens.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Wegelin to incorporate the teachings of Parsons to utilize lenses for all sensors, held within a lens carrier coupled to a sensor housing, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the infrared sensors of the first sensor arrangement are similar enough optically to the emitter and receiver of the second sensor arrangement and therefore the integration of lenses associated with the first sensor arrangement can be held as a duplication or repeat of the lenses associated with the second sensor arrangement. Inclusion of lenses in optical systems is well known in ranging and object detection systems, and would have a predictable result of focusing, either incoming or outgoing, infrared light associated with the first sensor arrangement. It has been held that "a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced" (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 16, Wegelin as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 14.
Wegelin is silent on the specific format of the second sensor arrangement beyond it comprising an emitter and a receiver in a transceiver structure.
Parsons teaches a blocker element, which includes a top layer and a bottom layer, wherein
the top layer is arranged between the third lens and the fourth lens ([0101]; Fig. 6A, where blinders (170) can be formed integrally with front circuit-housing part (116') and extend beyond (116') and lens rim (164) between lenses (136') and (152'));
and wherein the bottom layer comprises the portion of the gasket positioned between the emitter and the receiver ([0101]; Figs. 2A, 6A where front circuit-housing part (116') may be formed integrally with stop (172) or stop (162), and positioned between hoods (156) and (134)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Wegelin to incorporate the teachings of Parsons to utilize a transceiver (emitter/receiver pair) with specific characteristics, such as a blocker element situated between the emitter/receiver pair, with a reasonable expectation of success. Wegelin notes that the active sensors may take various forms, such as time-of-flight measurement devices ([0006]). Integration of the specific sensor of Parsons into the sensor system of Wegelin, with a blocker element between the emitter and receiver, would have a predictable result of reducing crosstalk between the receiver and emitter of the active sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Wegelin as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 14.
Wegelin is silent on the specific format of the second sensor arrangement beyond it comprising an emitter and a receiver in a transceiver structure.
Parsons teaches an emitter and receiver pair, which forms a sensor, which includes a lens carrier which is constructed from an opaque material ([0101], where front circuit housing piece (116') may be formed from opaque material).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Wegelin to incorporate the teachings of Parsons to utilize a transceiver (emitter/receiver pair) with specific characteristics, such as an opaque lens holder adjacent to the emitter/receiver pair, with a reasonable expectation of success. Wegelin notes that the active sensors may take various forms, such as time-of-flight measurement devices ([0006]). Integration of the specific sensor of Parsons into the sensor system of Wegelin, with an opaque lens carrier, would have a predictable result of reducing background noise that is collected by the receiver of the active sensor by reducing the area which light can be received by, to better align with the emitted infrared object detection signal.
Regarding claim 18, Wegelin as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 14, wherein
the sensor system is further configured to cause the second sensor arrangement to be switched back to the unpowered sleep state after a predetermined amount of time in response to removal of the presence of the object ([0032]; Fig. 1, step (110) where detection timeout occurs after some time (ex. 8 seconds) and/or due to further determination of no object detected).
Regarding claim 19, Wegelin as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 14.
Wegelin does not teach that the apparatus which includes the sensor system specifically comprises a faucet.
Parsons teaches installing a sensor system within a faucet ([0005], [0088]; Fig. 3 or 4, where sensor and valve may be used in a faucet embodiment).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Wegelin to incorporate the teachings of Parsons to utilize the sensor system within a faucet, with a reasonable expectation of success. Wegelin notes that the active sensors may take various forms, and has specific interest in utilizing the system in locations which implement various hygiene policies. Specifically, Wegelin notes “For example, a hospital may set an 85% hygiene compliance standard for a surgery room. A hygiene opportunity may correspond to a situation or scenario where a person should perform a hygiene event, such as using a hand sanitizer or washing their hands.” ([0003]). Integration of the sensor system into a faucet, such as one taught by Parsons, would have a predictable result of use in locations where hygiene, such as hand washing, is important, without the need for an additional apparatus or sensor system.
Regarding claim 20, Wegelin as modified above teaches the sensor system of claim 14, further including
a power source comprising a battery ([0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sawaski (US 20190264429 A1) teaches a system, such as a faucet, with a passive and active sensor, where the passive sensor is configured to detect a presence and wake up the active sensor, which detects a user adjacent to a spout once enabled.
Shirai (US 20160201306 A1) teaches an automatic water faucet, where the sensor housing includes lenses, housing and at least one blocking element intended to reduce scattering or crosstalk between the infrared emitter and sensor.
Guler et al. (US 20060006354 A1) teaches a sensor system for use in control of automatic faucets and flushers, where the system has at least an active sensor comprising an emitter and detector, and a passive optical sensor sensitive to ambient light where a microcontroller persists in a sleep mode until triggered by the passive sensor.
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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights