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 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.
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 13 May 2026. As directed by the amendment claims 1, 3, 5, 9-11, 14, 17-18 and 20 have been amended, and claims 2 and 15-16 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 3-14 and 17-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 7 the specification as originally filed does not provide adequate written description support for an embodiment of the aerosol containment device that includes both interior foils and interior vanes inside the plenum. Figures 4A-F and corresponding descriptions in paragraphs [037]-[040] appear to only support embodiments having:
entry vanes + interior foils, but no interior vanes (figures 4A-4C); or
entry vanes + interior vanes, but no interior foils (figures 4D-4E); or
entry vanes, but no interior vanes or foils; or
no entry vanes, interior foils or interior vanes (figure 4F).
Regarding claim 14, for the reasons listed above with respect to the limitation “the one or more flow features are selected from the group consisting of entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet, interior vanes inside the plenum, and interior foils inside the plenum”, the specification as originally filed does not provide adequate written description support for an embodiment of the aerosol containment device including one or more flow features that includes:
interior foils + interior vanes, but no entry vanes; or
entry vanes + interior foils + interior vanes.
Regarding claim 20, for the reasons listed above with respect to the limitation “a plurality of flow features within the plenum, wherein the plurality of flow features are selected from the group consisting of vertically positioned entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet, vertically positioned interior vanes inside the plenum, and vertically positioned interior foils inside the plenum”, the specification as originally filed does not provide adequate written description support for an embodiment of the aerosol containment device including plurality of flow features that includes:
interior foils + interior vanes, but no entry vanes; or
entry vanes + interior foils + interior vanes.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14 and 17-20 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 14, the limitation “one or more flow features positioned vertically within the plenum” renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not specify whether “vertical” is measured relative to gravity, the manifold body, the plenum, the front inlet, or the intended installed orientation of the device.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “one or more flow features positioned vertically win the plenum, wherein the one or more flow features are selected from the group consisting of entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet, interior vanes inside the plenum, and interior foils inside the plenum” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the “one or more flow features” must include at least one of each of the listed structures, or whether the one or more may include plurality of only one type, e.g., only entry vanes, only interior vanes, or only interior foils.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations “vertically positioned entry vanes”, “vertically positioned interior vanes”, and “vertically positioned interior foils” renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not specify whether “vertical” is measured relative to gravity, the manifold body, the plenum, the front inlet, or the intended installed orientation of the device.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “a plurality of flow features within the plenum, wherein the plurality of flow features are selected from the group consisting of vertically positioned entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet, vertically positioned interior vanes inside the plenum, and vertically positioned interior foils inside the plenum” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the “plurality of flow features” must include at least one of each of the listed structures, or whether the plurality may include only one type, e.g., only entry vanes, only interior vanes, or only interior foils.
Claims 17-19 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Jr et al. (US 2022/0000597 A1; which has a priority date of 07/01/2020) (Simpson) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0216281 A1) (Park) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0353395 A1; which has a priority date of 05/18/2020) (Kim).
Referring to claims 1 and 9: Simpson teaches an aerosol containment device for use in containing aerosols discharged during a dental procedure (see figures 1A-C; [0021] and [0025]), the aerosol containment device comprising: a manifold (see figures 1A-C, #120), wherein the manifold comprises: a body (see figures 1B-C, #121/122; [0025]), wherein the body comprises: a front inlet (see figures 1B-C, #125/126; [0025]); a rear discharge (see figures 1B-C, #127; [0025]); and plenum extending between the front inlet and the rear discharge (see figures 1B-C; [0025]; wherein the enclosed space between the cone #121 and cone #122, which defines the body, forms a plenum extending from the front inlet #125/126 to the rear discharge #127); and one or more channels formed inside the plenum (see [0025]). Simpson is silent to the one or more channels being formed by one or more interior foils inside the plenum; and a shield connected to the manifold, wherein the manifold comprises a plurality of attachment tabs and wherein the shield comprises a plurality of attachment apertures that are configured to capture a corresponding one of the plurality of attachment tabs to secure the shield to the manifold.
Park teaches a suction unit comprising a manifold (see figure 5, #200), the manifold comprising a plenum (see figure 5; [0064]-[0106]; wherein the enclosed space between the inner casing #211/212(210) and the outer casing #221/222(220), which defines the body, forms a plenum extending from the front inlet #125/126 to the rear discharge #127); one or more entry vanes (see figure 5, #231; [0088]-[0094]) adjacent to a front inlet of the manifold; and one or more interior vanes in the form of interior foils (see figure 5, #232; figure 9; [0030], [0100]-[0106], and [0145]) inside the plenum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the channels of Simpson with a plurality of interior foils like taught by Park in order to yield predictable results in directing air flow through the plenum while increasing the suction efficiency and reducing noise of the device (see Park [0030] and [0145]). Simpson, as modified by Park, is silent to a shield connected to the manifold.
Kim teaches an aerosol containment device (see figure 4A) comprising a manifold (see figure 4A, #104); a transparent shield (see figure 4A, #102; [0054], [0062]) connected to the manifold, wherein the manifold comprises a plurality of attachment tabs and wherein the shield comprises a plurality of attachment apertures that are configured to capture a corresponding one of the plurality of attachment tabs to secure the shield to the manifold (see figures 2C-D; [0059]); a vacuum source (see figure 4A, #114; [0045]-[0047]); and a vacuum hose (see figure 4A, #110) connected to the vacuum source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Simpson, as modified by Park, with a shield attached to the manifold through a plurality of attachment tabs and apertures like taught by Kim in order to prevent or substantially prevent aerosolized particles released from a patients nose and/or mouth from reaching the medical practitioner (see Kim [0054]).
Referring to claim 3: Simpson further teaches the manifold comprises one or more entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet (see figure 1B; [0025]-[0026]; wherein the vacuum channels are formed by a plurality of entry vanes formed by “including material between first cone 121 and second cone 122 to define each channel”), wherein each of the one or more entry vanes has a cross-section that is substantially constant (see figure 1B; [0025]-[0026]).
Referring to claim 4: Simpson teaches a plurality of entry vanes but is silent to the manifold comprising specifically between two and eight entry vanes. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the number of entry vanes would result in a difference in function of the Simpson device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the number of entry vanes in the manifold of Simpson would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being modified to include the claimed range of entry vanes. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range provides an advantage, is done for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, indicating that the number of entry vanes “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (see paragraph [039]; “may vary from 1 to 20, for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20, or more”), therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of entry vanes of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, to between two and eight entry vanes an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Referring to claim 5: Park further teaches each of the one or more interior foils has a cross-section that is variable (see figure 9; [0145]).
Referring to claim 6: Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, a plurality of interior foils but is silent to the manifold comprising specifically between two and eight interior foils. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the number of interior foils would result in a difference in function of the Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the number of interior foils in the manifold of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being modified to include the claimed range of interior foils. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range provides an advantage, is done for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, indicating that the number of interior foils “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (see paragraph [039]; “may vary from 1 to 20, for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20, or more”), therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of interior foils of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, to between two and eight interior foils an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Referring to claim 7: Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, teach one or more interior vanes in the form of interior foils inside the plenum (see Park figure 5, #232; figure 9; [0030], [0100]-[0106], and [0145]). Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, is silent to the one or more interior vanes having a cross-section that is substantially constant. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the cross-section of the interior vane/foils would result in a difference in function of the Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the interior vanes/foils in the manifold of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being modified to include interior vanes having a constant cross-section. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range provides an advantage, is done for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, indicating that the plenum may include interior foils or interior vanes or no interior foils or interior vanes (see figures 4A-F; paragraphs [037]-[040]), therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the particular cross-sectional shape of the interior vanes/foils such that it produces an unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior vanes/foils of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, to with a constant cross-sectional shape as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Referring to claim 8: Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, a plurality of interior foils but is silent to the manifold comprising specifically between two and eight interior vanes. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the number of interior foils would result in a difference in function of the Simpson device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modify the number of interior vanes in the manifold of Simpson would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being modified to include the claimed range of interior vanes. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range provides an advantage, is done for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, indicating that the number of interior vanes “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (see paragraph [039]; “may vary from 1 to 20, for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20, or more”), therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of interior vanes of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, to between two and eight interior vanes as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Referring to claim 10: Kim further teaches the shield is manufactured from a clear plastic (see [0062]).
Referring to claim 11: Simpson further teaches a vacuum source (see figure 1A, #200; [0023] and [0028]); and a vacuum hose (see figure 1A, #113; [0023]) connected between the vacuum source and the rear discharge of the manifold (see figure 1A).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Park in view of Kim, as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Chen (US Patent No. 5,865,182).
Referring to claim 12: Simpson further teaches the manifold further comprises coupling that is configured to selectively hold the manifold in fixed positional relationship with the vacuum hose (see [0027]). Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, does not explicitly teach the coupling being a set screw. Chen teaches a positionable viewing shield comprising a connector (see figures 1-2, #22) coupling a flexible segment (see figure 1, #48) with a set screw (see figures 1-2, #26; column 3, lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a simple substitution of the coupling of Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, with a connector including set screw like taught by Chen in order to yield predictable results in coupling the manifold in a fixed position relative to the vacuum hose.
Referring to claim 13: Simpson further teaches the vacuum hose is a structured hose (see figure 1A; [0023]).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Kim.
Referring to claim 14: Simpson teaches an aerosol containment device for use in containing aerosols discharged during a dental procedure (see figures 1A-C; [0021] and [0025]), the aerosol containment device comprising: a vacuum source (see figure 1A, #200; [0023] and [0028]); a vacuum hose (see figure 1A, #113; [0023]) connected to the vacuum source; a manifold (see figures 1A-C, #120) connected to the vacuum hose, wherein the manifold comprises: a body (see figures 1B-C, #121/122; [0025]), wherein the body comprises: a front inlet (see figures 1B-C, #125/126; [0025]); a rear discharge (see figures 1B-C, #127; [0025]); a plenum extending between the front inlet and the rear discharge (see figures 1B-C; [0025]; wherein the enclosed space between the cone #121 and cone #122, which defines the body, forms a plenum extending from the front inlet #125/126 to the rear discharge #127); and one or more flow features positioned vertically within the plenum, wherein the one or more flow features are selected from the group consisting of entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet, interior vanes inside the plenum, and interior foils inside the plenum (see figure 1B; [0025]-[0026]; wherein the vacuum channels are formed by a plurality of vertical entry vanes formed by “including material between first cone 121 and second cone 122 to define each channel”). Simpson is silent to a shield connected to the manifold, wherein the shield is manufactured from a transparent plastic.
Kim teaches an aerosol containment device (see figure 4A) comprising a manifold (see figure 4A, #104); a transparent plastic shield (see figure 4A, #102; [0054], [0062]) connected to the manifold, wherein the manifold comprises a plurality of attachment tabs and wherein the shield comprises a plurality of attachment apertures that are configured to capture a corresponding one of the plurality of attachment tabs to secure the shield to the manifold (see figures 2C-D; [0059]); a vacuum source (see figure 4A, #114; [0045]-[0047]); and a vacuum hose (see figure 4A, #110) connected to the vacuum source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Simpson with a shield attached to the manifold through a plurality of attachment tabs and apertures like taught by Kim in order to prevent or substantially prevent aerosolized particles released from a patients nose and/or mouth from reaching the medical practitioner (see Kim [0054]).
Referring to claim 20: Simpson teaches an aerosol containment device for use in containing aerosols discharged during a dental procedure (see figures 1A-C; [0021] and [0025]), the aerosol containment device comprising: a vacuum source (see figure 1A, #200; [0023] and [0028]); a vacuum hose (see figure 1A, #113; [0023]) connected to the vacuum source, wherein the vacuum hose is a structured hose (see figure 1A; [0023]); a manifold (see figures 1A-C, #120) connected to the vacuum hose, wherein the manifold comprises a body (see figures 1B-C, #121/122; [0025]) that has: a front inlet (see figures 1B-C, #125/126; [0025]); a rear discharge (see figures 1B-C, #127; [0025]) connected to the vacuum hose; a plenum extending between the front inlet and the rear discharge (see figures 1B-C; [0025]; wherein the enclosed space between the cone #121 and cone #122, which defines the body, forms a plenum extending from the front inlet #125/126 to the rear discharge #127); and a plurality of flow features within the plenum, wherein the plurality of flow features are selected from the group consisting of vertically positioned entry vanes adjacent to the front inlet, vertically positioned interior vanes inside the plenum, and vertically positioned interior foils inside the plenum (see figure 1B; [0025]-[0026]; wherein the vacuum channels are formed by a plurality of vertical entry vanes formed by “including material between first cone 121 and second cone 122 to define each channel”). Simpson is silent to a shield connected to the manifold, wherein the shield is manufactured from a transparent plastic.
Kim teaches an aerosol containment device (see figure 4A) comprising a manifold (see figure 4A, #104); a transparent plastic shield (see figure 4A, #102; [0054], [0062]) connected to the manifold, wherein the manifold comprises a plurality of attachment tabs and wherein the shield comprises a plurality of attachment apertures that are configured to capture a corresponding one of the plurality of attachment tabs to secure the shield to the manifold (see figures 2C-D; [0059]); a vacuum source (see figure 4A, #114; [0045]-[0047]); and a vacuum hose (see figure 4A, #110) connected to the vacuum source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Simpson with a shield attached to the manifold through a plurality of attachment tabs and apertures like taught by Kim in order to prevent or substantially prevent aerosolized particles released from a patients nose and/or mouth from reaching the medical practitioner (see Kim [0054]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Kim , as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Park.
Referring to claim 17: Simpson further teaches the one or more flow features comprise a plurality of entry vanes (see figure 1B; [0025]-[0026]; wherein the vacuum channels are formed by a plurality of vertical entry vanes formed by “including material between first cone 121 and second cone 122 to define each channel”). Simpson, as modified by Kim, is silent to a plurality of interior foils, and wherein each of the plurality of interior foils is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of entry vanes.
Park teaches a suction unit comprising a manifold (see figure 5, #200), the manifold comprising a plenum (see figure 5; [0064]-[0106]; wherein the enclosed space between the inner casing #211/212(210) and the outer casing #221/222(220), which defines the body, forms a plenum extending from the front inlet #125/126 to the rear discharge #127); one or more entry vanes (see figure 5, #231; [0088]-[0094]) adjacent to a front inlet of the manifold; and one or more interior vanes in the form of interior foils (see figure 5, #232; figure 9; [0030], [0100]-[0106], and [0145]) inside the plenum, wherein each of the plurality of interior foils is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of entry vanes (see figure 5; [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the channels of Simpson, as modified by Kim, with a plurality of interior foils like taught by Park in order to yield predictable results in directing air flow through the plenum while increasing the suction efficiency and reducing noise of the device (see Park [0030] and [0145]).
Referring to claim 18: Simpson further teaches the one or more flow features comprise a plurality of entry vanes (see figure 1B; [0025]-[0026]; wherein the vacuum channels are formed by a plurality of vertical entry vanes formed by “including material between first cone 121 and second cone 122 to define each channel”). Simpson, as modified by Kim, is silent to a plurality of interior vanes, and wherein each of the plurality of interior foils is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of entry vanes.
Park teaches a suction unit comprising a manifold (see figure 5, #200), the manifold comprising a plenum (see figure 5; [0064]-[0106]; wherein the enclosed space between the inner casing #211/212(210) and the outer casing #221/222(220), which defines the body, forms a plenum extending from the front inlet #125/126 to the rear discharge #127); one or more entry vanes (see figure 5, #231; [0088]-[0094]) adjacent to a front inlet of the manifold; and one or more interior vanes (see figure 5, #232; [0100]-[0106]) inside the plenum, wherein each of the plurality of interior vanes is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of entry vanes (see figure 5; [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the channels of Simpson, as modified by Kim, with a plurality of interior vanes like taught by Park in order to yield predictable results in aiding in guiding and discharging air (see Park [0101]-[0105]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Kim, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Chen.
Referring to claim 19: Simpson further teaches the manifold further comprises coupling that is configured to selectively hold the manifold in fixed positional relationship with the vacuum hose (see [0027]). Simpson, as modified by Park and Kim, does not explicitly teach the coupling being a set screw. Chen teaches a positionable viewing shield comprising a connector (see figures 1-2, #22) coupling a flexible segment (see figure 1, #48) with a set screw (see figures 1-2, #26; column 3, lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a simple substitution of the coupling of Simpson, as modified by Kim, with a connector including set screw like taught by Chen in order to yield predictable results in coupling the manifold in a fixed position relative to the vacuum hose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to applicant’s arguments concerning the “conforming amendments” to incorporate the allowable subject matter into claims 1 and 14, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the Office action dated 13 February 2026 “Claims 5-6 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.” (emphasis added) As amended each of claims 1 and 14 were only amended to incorporate a portion of claims 5 and 17 respectively and further failed to incorporate all intervening claims, therefore the scope of claims 1 and 14 are not the same as original claims 5 and 17, respectively. The change in scope of the claims has necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims in view of Orrington, II (US 2021/0353469 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAYLEE R WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7517. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/KAYLEE R WILSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights