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
The amendment filed January 8, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 remain pending and examined in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 10, 2025.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “a receiving portion” has been interpreted as any structure that can receive a holding force from a biasing portion.
The limitation “an airtight member” has been interpreted as any structure that is capable of preventing inflow/outflow of air between the inside and outside of the first region.
The limitation “a sample container conveying mechanism” has been interpreted as any structure capable of conveying a container, such as a belt or rail.
The limitation “a reagent container holding mechanism” has been interpreted as any structure capable of holding a reagent container, such as a tray.
The limitation “a reaction mechanism” has been interpreted as any structure of capable of holding a reaction vessel while a reaction occurs in the vessel, such as an incubator.
The limitation “a sample dispensing mechanism” has been interpreted as any structure capable of dispensing a sample, such as a nozzle or pipette.
The limitation “a reagent dispensing mechanism” has been interpreted as any structure capable of dispensing a reagent, such as a nozzle or pipette.
The limitation “a pretreatment device” has been interpreted as any structure capable of pre-treating a reaction solution, such as a diluter.
The limitation “a measurement device” has been interpreted as any structure capable of measuring a reaction solution, such as a detector or sensor.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an opening holding mechanism that holds the support arm…and releases holding of the support arm…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing 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: [0059] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant Application, US 2023/0258675 8 A1 (Yamashita et al., hereinafter “Yamashita”) teaches the opening holding mechanism being a biasing member. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the opening holding mechanism to be a biasing member, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Examiner’s Note: claim 3 provides sufficient structure for “the opening holding mechanism” to not require interpretation under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that the opening and closing lid has a boundary with the section and includes a first side, second side, third side, and fourth side. The claim further recites the direction that each side extends, e.g., “the first side, in a front view, extends downward from the first side of the support shaft on an incline…the second side…extends downward and in a first direction, that is away from the support shaft, to form a less steep incline than the incline of the first side with respect to a horizontal direction of the first side…”, etc. However, as the opening and closing lid moves from a fully opened position to a fully closed position, it is unclear if the sides of the opening and closing lid have been described when the opening and closing lid is in a fully opened position, a fully closed position, or an intermediate position. Further clarification is needed. At least Fig. 4 of the instant Drawings suggests that the sides of the opening and closing lid have been described when the opening and closing lid is in a fully closed position. Therefore, for purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as meaning that the sides of the opening and closing lid have been described when the opening and closing lid is in a fully closed position.
Examiner’s Note: in order to overcome the above 112(b) rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “wherein, when the opening and closing lid is in the fully closed position:
an uppermost portion of the first side, in a front view, extends downward from the first side of the support shaft on an incline,
the second side is continuously connected…
the third side is continuously connected…
the fourth side is continuously connected…”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites that the uppermost portion of the first side, in a front view, extends downward from the first side of the support shaft on an incline. However, although the second, third, and fourth sides are described, it is unclear which view they have been described in, i.e. whether the sides have been described in the front view, or a different view. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, and based on at least Fig. 4 of the instant Drawings, the second, third and fourth sides have been examined as being described in the front view.
Examiner’s Note: in order to overcome the above 112(b) rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the descriptions of the second, third, and fourth sides to clarify that the sides are described in the front view, i.e., “the second side…and, in the front view, extends downward…the third side…and, in the front view, extends in the first direction…the fourth side…and, in the front view, extends upward…”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (Translation of JP Pub. No. 2017-202072; hereinafter Kotani; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kotani discloses an opening and closing lid device that is provided to cover a region cover and a first region provided on a work surface of a housing (see Figs. 1-2 at lid 5). The opening and closing lid device comprises:
an opening and closing lid dimensioned and arranged to cover an opening portion formed in the region cover, and attached so as to be movable between an open position and a closed position to provide access to an inside of the first region from an outside (see Figs. 1-2 at lid 5).
A support arm, extending through the opening portion, having a first end fixed to a first surface of the opening and closing lid facing the first region and a second end rotatably supported to a support shaft disposed inside the first region, and the support arm is configured such that rotation about the support shaft drives movement of the opening and closing lid between the open position and the closed position (see Figs. 2, 4 at feature 49, i.e. support arm, on lid 5, which connects to feature 6, which acts as a support shaft).
An opening holding mechanism operatively engaged with the support arm and configured to:
apply a holding force to the support arm that maintains the opening and closing lid in a fully opened position when an end of the opening and closing lid, which is located at a side away from the support shaft, is moved to a position higher than a predetermined reference height (Pg. 1 at 1st Para., Pg. 6 2nd to Last. Para., Pg. 10 2nd Para.-Pg. 11 6th Para., see Figs. 4-8 at springs 55 accommodated in spring receiving holes 67, which hold the lid in an opened position when the opening angle of the lid is greater than a certain value, and hold the lid in a closed position when the opening angle of the lid is less than a certain value).
release the holding force when the end of the opening and closing lid is moved below the predetermined reference height, thereby permitting the opening and closing lid to rotate under its own weight to a fully closed position (Pg. 1 at 1st Para., Pg. 6 2nd to Last. Para., Pg. 10 2nd Para.-Pg. 11 6th Para., see Figs. 4-8 at springs 55 accommodated in spring receiving holes 67, which hold the lid in an opened position when the opening angle of the lid is greater than a certain value, and hold the lid in a closed position when the opening angle of the lid is less than a certain value).
In the fully opened position, the end of the opening and closing lid is positioned at a height greater than an other end of the opening and closing lid that is adjacent to the support shaft (see Figs. 1-2).
In the fully closed position the other end is positioned at a height greater than the end (see Figs. 1-2).
The region cover and the first region constitute a section (the region cover and the first region are not positively recited. Nevertheless, the lid does cover a region cover and a first section in Figs. 1-2).
Kotani fails to explicitly disclose that the opening and closing lid has a boundary with the section and includes a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side,
wherein an uppermost portion of the first side, in a front view, extends downward from the first side of the support shaft on an incline,
wherein the second side is continuously connected from a lowermost portion of the first side and extends downward and in a first direction, that is away from the support shaft, to form a less steep incline than the incline of the first side with respect to a horizontal direction of the first side,
wherein the third side is continuously connected from a lower end of the second side and extends in the first direction near a lower surface of the section, and
wherein the fourth side is continuously connected from an end of the third side that is opposite an end of the third side connected to the second side and extends upward and in the first direction to the end of the opening and closing lid.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an opening and closing lid having a boundary with the claimed first side, second side, third side, and fourth side, since the configuration of the claimed opening and closing lid is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the opening and closing lid is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to choose an opening and closing lid having the claimed first side, second side, third side, and fourth side from a finite number of identified, predictable ways to provide a lid for a container, i.e. it would have been obvious to try the specific configuration of the opening and closing lid to optimize the ability of the lid to adequately cover portions of the device.
Further, with regards to the housing accommodating at least a part of functional portions of an analyzer, the Examiner notes that the functional portions of the analyzer are not positively recited in the claim. Further, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured such that rotation about the support shaft drives movement of the opening and closing lid…”, “configured to: apply a holding force…release the holding force…”, “configured to release biasing to the receiving portion…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kotani discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 1. Kotani further discloses that the other end of the opening and closing lid is positioned above the support shaft in both the fully opened position and the fully closed position (see Figs. 4-8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kotani discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 1, and all limitations recited therein. Kotani further discloses that:
the opening holding mechanism includes a receiving portion provided at the support arm, and a biasing portion configured to apply the holding force to the receiving portion to prevent the opening and closing lid from moving to the fully closed position due to its own weight when the opening and closing lid is in the fully opened position (see Figs. 7-11 at receiving area for springs 55a, 55b).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kotani discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 3, and all limitations recited therein. Kotani further discloses that:
the opening holding mechanism is configured to release biasing to the receiving portion when, in the fully opened position, the end of the opening and closing lid receives a downward force equal to or larger than a predetermined force, thereby permitting the opening and closing lid to rotate under its own weight to the fully closed position (Pg. 10 2nd Para.-Pg. 11 6th Para., see Figs. 7-11).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kotani discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 3, and all limitations recited therein. Kotani further discloses a lower cover that is separated from and arranged to cover the support shaft and the opening holding mechanism from below (see Figs. 7-11).
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki et al. (GB Pub. No. 2406643; hereinafter Miyaki; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Miyaki discloses an opening and closing lid device that is provided to cover a region cover and a first region provided on a work surface of a housing accommodating at least a part of functional portions of an analyzer (Abstract, Pg. 4 Last Ln.-Pg. 6 1st Para., see Fig. 4 at lid 3, which covers the analyzing apparatus). The opening and closing lid device comprises:
an opening and closing lid dimensioned and arranged to cover an opening portion formed in the region cover, and attached so as to be movable between an open position and a closed position to provide access to an inside of the first region from an outside (see Fig. 4 at lid 3).
A support arm, extending through the opening portion, having a first end fixed to a first surface of the opening and closing lid facing the first region and a second end rotatably supported to a support shaft disposed inside the first region, and the support arm is configured such that rotation about the support shaft drives movement of the opening and closing lid between the open position and the closed position (see Fig. 4 at lid 3. The portion of the lid closest to components 15 and 16 can be considered the support arm).
An opening holding mechanism operatively engaged with the support arm and configured to:
apply a holding force to the support arm that maintains the opening and closing lid in a fully opened position when an end of the opening and closing lid, which is located at a side away from the support shaft, is moved to a position higher than a predetermined reference height (Pg. 19 Last Para.-Pg. 23 1st Para., see Fig. 4 at spring cam hinge 15 and friction hinge 16, see also Claims 2-3).
Release the holding force when the end of the opening and closing lid is moved below the predetermined reference height, thereby permitting the opening and closing lid to rotate under its own weight to a fully closed position (Pg. 19 Last Para.-Pg. 23 1st Para., see Fig. 4 at spring cam hinge 15 and friction hinge 16, see also Claims 2-3).
In the fully opened position, the end of the opening and closing lid is positioned at a height greater than an other end of the opening and closing lid that is adjacent to the support shaft (see Fig. 4 at lid 3).
In the fully closed position the other end is positioned at a height greater than the end (see Fig. 4 at lid 3).
The region cover and the first region constitute a section (the region cover and the first region are not positively recited. Nevertheless, the lid does cover a region cover and a first section in Figs. 1-4).
Miyaki fails to explicitly disclose that the opening and closing lid has a boundary with the section and includes a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side,
wherein an uppermost portion of the first side, in a front view, extends downward from the first side of the support shaft on an incline,
wherein the second side is continuously connected from a lowermost portion of the first side and extends downward and in a first direction, that is away from the support shaft, to form a less steep incline than the incline of the first side with respect to a horizontal direction of the first side,
wherein the third side is continuously connected from a lower end of the second side and extends in the first direction near a lower surface of the section, and
wherein the fourth side is continuously connected from an end of the third side that is opposite an end of the third side connected to the second side and extends upward and in the first direction to the end of the opening and closing lid.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an opening and closing lid having a boundary with the claimed first side, second side, third side, and fourth side, since the configuration of the claimed opening and closing lid is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the opening and closing lid is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to choose an opening and closing lid having the claimed first side, second side, third side, and fourth side from a finite number of identified, predictable ways to provide a lid for a container, i.e. it would have been obvious to try the specific configuration of the opening and closing lid to optimize the ability of the lid to adequately cover portions of the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Miyaki discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 1. Miyaki further discloses that the other end of the opening and closing lid is positioned above the support shaft in both the fully opened position and the fully closed position (Pg. 19 Last Para.-Pg. 23 1st Para., see Figs. 4-8 at lid 3, which has a nearer portion above shaft 15a in both open and closed positions).
Regarding claim 6, modified Miyaki discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 1, and all limitations recited therein. Miyaki further discloses an airtight member that is provided at a boundary between the opening and closing lid in the fully closed position and the region cover, prevents inflow and outflow of air from occurring between the inside and the outside of the first region, and prevents light from entering the inside of the first region (see Fig. 4 at outer edge of lid 3, which has various contours. These contours act to mate with the analyzer housing 2 to ensure that the analyzer is fully closed, thereby preventing inflow and outflow of air, and preventing light from entering the workspace within).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki, as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above, in view of Joji (US Pub. No. 2019/0033332; already of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miyaki discloses the opening and closing lid device according to claim 1. Miyaki further discloses an automatic analyzer (Pg. 14 3rd Para.-Pg. 18 1st Para., Claim 1) comprising:
a reagent container holding mechanism on which a reagent container accommodating a reagent for reacting with the sample is placed and held (Pg. 14 3rd Para.-Pg. 18 1st Para., see Figs. 1-2 at reagent tray 4b holding reagent bottles 4a).
A reaction mechanism on which a reaction vessel is placed, the sample and the reagent being reacted in the reaction vessel (Pg. 14 3rd Para.-Pg. 18 1st Para., see Figs. 1-2 at reaction unit 7 including a cuvette table 7a).
A sample dispensing mechanism that dispenses the sample in the sample container into the reaction vessel (Pg. 14 3rd Para.-Pg. 18 1st Para., see Figs. 1-2 at pipette 6d).
A reagent dispensing mechanism that dispenses the reagent in the reagent container into the reaction vessel (Pg. 14 3rd Para.-Pg. 18 1st Para., see Figs. 1-2 at pipette 4d).
A pretreatment device that pre-treats a reaction solution of the sample and the reagent dispensed into the reaction vessel (Pg. 14 3rd Para.-Pg. 18 1st Para., a driver is included for turning a motor of the table turning mechanism of the reaction unit 7. By turning the table of the reaction unit, the reaction solution can be mixed, which is a form of pretreatment).
A region cover that is provided to cover a first region including the pretreatment device (see Figs. 3-4 at lid 3 for housing 2).
The opening and closing lid device (see Figs. 3-4 at lid 3 for housing 2).
Modified Miyaki fails to explicitly disclose:
a sample container conveying mechanism on which a sample container accommodating a sample to be analyzed is placed and conveyed; and
a measurement device that measures the reaction solution subjected to a pretreatment by the pretreatment device.
Joji is in the analogous field of automatic analysis devices (Joji [0001]) and teaches a sample container conveying mechanism on which a sample container can be placed and conveyed (Joji; [0026], see Fig. 1 at reaction vessel transporting mechanism 109), and a measurement device for measuring a reaction solution (Joji; [0024], [0028], see Fig. 1 at detection unit/reaction port 111). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the automatic analyzer of modified Miyaki with the teachings of Joji to include a sample container conveying mechanism on which a sample container accommodating a sample to be analyzed is placed and conveyed, and a measurement device that measures the reaction solution subjected to a pretreatment by the pretreatment device. The motivation would have been that a sample container conveying mechanism can be used to transport a sample container to different locations within the analyzer as desired, and a measurement device can be used to determine properties of the sample for, e.g. diagnostic purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 7-11 of their Remarks that none of the prior art of record, particularly Kotani and Miyaki, teach that the opening and closing lid has a boundary with a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side as claimed in instant claim 1. As none of the prior art of record, particularly Kotani and Miyaki, teach these limitations, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable, particularly as Applicant’s disclosure as shown in [0045], [0054], and [0056] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant Application, US 2023/0258675 8 A1 (Yamashita et al., hereinafter “Yamashita”), demonstrate that the shape of the boundary is critical to maintain a separation of airflow on either side of the boundary and maintain a consistent temperature. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that Applicant has pointed to [0045], [0054], and [0056] of Yamashita to show that the claimed boundary shape is critical to the invention, and modifying the opening and closing lid as taught by either Kotani or Miyaki to have the claimed boundary shape would not have been obvious, due to the criticality of the shape to separate airflow and maintain a consistent temperature. However, [0056] of Yamashita teaches that it is the airtight member, not the boundary shape, that allows the device to separate airflow and maintain a consistent temperature. As best understood by the Examiner, the particular shape of the boundary shape as claimed in the instant claim set does not appear to be a critical feature of the invention. As such, modifying the opening and closing lid as taught by either Kotani or Miyaki to have the claimed boundary shape would have been obvious as a matter of design choice. For a more detailed explanation, please see the rejection of Claim 1 in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 103 section of this instant Office Action. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798