DETAILED ACTION Th is office action is in response to the communication received March 23, 2026. The amendments of claims 1 and 13-14 are acknowledged as well as the terminal disclaimer. 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. Terminal Disclaimer As indicated in the Terminal Disclaimer review decision of April 3, 2026, the terminal disclaimer was disapproved due to the wrong form being used. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments overcoming previous claim objections are persuasive and accordingly, previous claim objections are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(d) rejections are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that amendments overcome the rejections, however, “a needle guide accessible through the septum window” still appears in both claim 13 and 14. Applicant’s arguments that the terminal disclaimer overcomes the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections are not persuasive, as the terminal disclaimer was disapproved. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 14 is 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 “ a needle guide accessible through the septum window” renders the claim indefinite as such limitation s already appear in claim 13, from which claim 14 depends , and it is unclear whether these are the same or different than those of claim 13 . For examination reasons, these are interpreted as being the same. It looks like th ese limitation s w ere accidentally left in claim 14 as there is no connection disclosed between the needle guide and second filing aid tab (“a needle guide…a second filling aid tab”), and Figures 274-287 do not disclose additional needle guides or filing aid tabs on top of those required by claim 13. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 14, the limitations “a needle guide accessible through the septum window” already appear in claim 13, and therefore claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,523,972, hereinafter ‘972. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1 and 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 14 of ‘972. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Regarding claim 1, claim 2 of ‘972 discloses all limitations required by claim 1. Regarding claim 13, claim 14 of ‘972 disclose all limitations required by claim 13. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of ‘972 disclose all limitations required by claim 14. Claims 3-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-12 of ‘972 in view of Kriesel et al. (US 5,334,197). Regarding claims 3-12 and 15-24 , claim s 3-12 and 15-24 of ‘972, respectively , disclose substantially all limitations required by claims 3-12 and 15-24 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 2 9- 3 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of the respective claim of ‘972 in order to help with gripping the cover. Claims 1, 3-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 5-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 994,871, hereinafter ‘871 and disclosed by Applicant in an IDS filed April 16, 2024 , in view of Kriesel. Regarding claim 1, claim 3 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 1 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 2 9- 3 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 3 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 3, claim 5 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 3 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 2 9- 3 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 5 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 4, claim 6 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 4 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 2 9-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 6 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 5, claim 8 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 5 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 8 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 6, claim 9 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 6 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 9 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 7, claim 10 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 7 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 10 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 8, claim 12 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 8 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 12 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 9, claim 13 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 9 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 13 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 10 , claim 14 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 10 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 14 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 11, claim 7 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 11 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 7 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Regarding claim 12, claim 11 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 12 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 11 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Claims 2 and 13-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 18 and 20-29 of ‘871 in view of Kriesel and further in view of Lanier, JR. et al. (US 2011/0186177). Regarding claim 2, claim 3 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 2 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 3 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claims 13-14, claim 18 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claims 13-14 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover of claim 18 of ‘871 in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 15, claim 20 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 15 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 16, claim 21 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 16 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 17, claim 23 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 17 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 18, claim 24 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 18 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 19, claim 25 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 19 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 20, claim 27 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 20 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 21, claim 28 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 21 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 22, claim 29 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 22 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 23, claim 22 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 23 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 29 -31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Regarding claim 24, claim 26 of ‘871 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 24 of the current application except for a second filling aid tab attached to the cover and a needle guide accessible through the septum window. Kriesel discloses a slidable cover for an apparatus for infusion to a patient, the cover having a tab 50 attached to help with gripping the cover (see col. 5, lines 2 9-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tab of Kriesel to the cover in order to help with gripping the cover. Lanier, JR. discloses a filling aid with a needle guide accessible through a septum window (see par. 445, 452, 496) to help guide a needle to a septum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling aid further include a needle guide as disclosed by Lanier, JR. in order to help guide a needle to a septum to help with transfer of fluids. Examiner Comment The closest prior art found is Lanigan et al. (US 2015/0157537) , disclosed in an IDS filed April 16, 2024, Lanigan not disclosing the required “bottom portion wherein the cover portion slides downward over the bottom portion and wherein the cover portion slides downward over the bottom portion, the device is in an unlocked configuration . ” In Lanigan, the cover moves from left to right, controlled by the slider beam/spring (see para. 307), in order to control access of a syringe to septum 146. Consequently, the cover is designed to move right such that it is directly over the septum and then left such that it does not completely cover the septum (see Figs. 5A-5B). Due to this required positioning, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to have the device of Lanigan include the cover portion sliding downward over a bottom portion in relation to an unlocked configuration, as the sliding goes across the bottom portion, and not towards the bottom portion (which would be required for downward movement). 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4665 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 - 5:00 PST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT REBECCA E EISENBERG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5879 . 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. /ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781