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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. The amendments made in claim 10 overcome the previously set-forth objection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/14/2025. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-11 are as previously presented.
Claims 5 and 9 have been cancelled.
Claims 11 and 12 have been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-13 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 12, and 13 being independent.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth abstract and specification objections. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
The amendment overcomes the previously set-forth claim 9 objection, having now been amended to make the new claim 13. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment still fails to provide a certified copy of priority document IT 202100032534 filed on 12/23/2021.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 5 are not persuasive, as described in the ‘Response to Arguments’ section below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on December 23, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT 202100032534 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner acknowledges applicant’s request for the USPTO to pull the document with the addition of the updated ADS to the record. This pull has yet to occur.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitations are:
“A dispensing element configured to dispense hot water” in claims 1, 12, and 13. Support for “dispensing element” and its corresponding functions is found in the specification on page 5, lines 26-27, which discloses the dispensing element 1 is shaped as a conduit and has, at one end thereof, a nozzle 10 configured to deliver a flow of hot water.
“Feeding members in fluid communication with the dispensing element to feed hot water to the dispensing element” in claims 1, 12, and 13. Support for the “feeding members” and its corresponding functions is found in the specification on page 6, lines 9-11, which discloses feeding members 2 are understood to mean pumping means and a heating means which, in combination are configured to generate a flow of pressurized hot water.
“A tank filling control system configured to control the actuation of the feeding members” in claim 10. Support for the tank filling control system is found in the specification on page 11, lines 22-26, which discloses the control system 8 comprises a control board 83 placed in signal communication with the valve body 24, the filling sensor 81 and the flowmeter 82. The control board 83 based on the measurements of the filling sensor 81, or of the flowmeter 82, or of both is configured to send an actuation signal to the valve body 24 to allow or inhibit the delivery of hot water from the dispensing element 1.
“Motor elements kinematically connected to the tank and configured to rotate the tank around a rotation axis oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction” in claim 12.
“The directing elements comprising an articulated portion and being configured to direct the hot water discharged from the discharge opening of the tank towards the hopper” in claim 13. Support for the “directing elements” and its corresponding functions is found in the specification on page 11, lines 4-6 and 9-11, which discloses the directing elements 7 comprise a first conduit 71 connected to the bottom 54 of the tank 5, and a second conduit 72 connected to the first conduit 71 by means of the articulated portion 70. By acting on the articulated portion 70 it is possible to change the relative position of the second conduit 72 with respect to the first conduit 71 so as to correctly direct the hot water into the inlet opening 41.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Figure 1 shows the motor elements but fails to describe how the motor elements would interact to set the tank into motion. The gear shown in the figure is of a unique shape that would not appear to engage the depicted rotating motor shaft rotating perpendicular to the gear since the gear teeth depicted do not appear capable of interacting with the motor shaft. Therefore, it is unclear what the applicant was in possession of at the time of filing.
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.
Claim 12 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.
Claim limitation “motor elements kinematically connected to the tank and configured to rotate the tank around a rotation axis oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to describe how the motor elements in Figure 1 move together to rotate the tank. The engagement of the motor elements onto the tank is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
All foreign document citations made are citing the English translations of the applications attached as part of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/14/2025.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (U.S. Patent No. 5,307,733) in view of Clark et al (U.S. Publication No. 20170251865-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Enomoto teaches a coffee machine (Fig. 2, 10) which comprises a dispensing element (water supplier 60) configured to dispense hot water; feeding members (tank 40, boiler 50, hot water supply pipe 53) in fluid communication with the dispensing element (60) to feed hot water to the dispensing element; a dispensing unit (water supply opening 62) in fluid communication with the dispensing element (60) to receive hot water from the dispensing element (60), the discharge element (60) discharges the hot water into a hopper (filter basket 2) configured to accommodate a dose of coffee grounds.
Enomoto fails to teach a dispensing unit that comprises a tank arranged below the dispensing element along a longitudinal direction, and having a chamber extending parallel to the longitudinal direction, and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element, said tank having a discharge opening configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank by gravity into a hopper configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee.
Clark teaches a coffee machine (400) having a tank (482) including a chamber arranged below a dispensing element (480) parallel and along a longitudinal direction (See Fig. 2) and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element (480), said tank (482) having a discharge opening (496) configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank (482) by gravity (Pg. 1, paragraph 8) into a hopper (424) configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee for the purpose of facilitating a smooth and consistent flow of properly heated water (Pg. 4, paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have modified the device of Enomoto to incorporate a dispensing unit that comprises a tank with a chamber arranged below the dispensing element along and parallel to a longitudinal direction and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element, said tank having a discharge opening configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank by gravity into a hopper configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee for the purpose of facilitating a smooth and consistent flow of properly heated water onto coffee grounds located within the hopper to create a consistent and good cup of coffee.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the device of Enomoto to include the structure of claim 8 of the tank comprising a bottom opposite the filling opening and delimiting the chamber along the longitudinal direction; the discharge opening extending along the longitudinal direction through the bottom of the tank so as to put the chamber of the tank in fluid communication with the hopper as taught by Clark for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of claim 1 teaches the hopper being below the tank (see obvious statement of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of claim 1 teaches the discharge opening of the tank configured to face the hopper along the longitudinal direction so as to be able to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank by gravity on the dose of ground coffee that can be accommodated in the hopper (see obvious statement of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of claim 1 teaches the discharge opening of the tank with an axis oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction (see obvious statement of claim 1 above). Both Enomoto (See Fig. 2) and Clark (See Fig. 2) show their dispensing units as being parallel to the longitudinal direction of their respective coffee machines.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of claim 1 teaches a tank comprising a chamber adapted to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element; and a filling opening adapted to allow the introduction of hot water into the chamber, said filling opening having an axis oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction (see obvious statement of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of claim 1 teaches a tank comprising a bottom opposite the filling opening and delimiting the chamber along the longitudinal direction; the discharge opening extends along the longitudinal direction through the bottom of the tank so as to put the chamber of the tank in fluid communication with the hopper (see obvious statement of claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (CN Patent No. 107184098).
The modified device of Enomoto teaches a tank (Clark, 482) comprising a side wall (Clark, See Fig. 2) perimetrically delimiting the chamber of the tank.
The modified device of Enomoto fails to teach the dispensing element with a nozzle configured to generate a flow of water that laps the side wall of the tank.
Wang teaches a milk powder brewing device having a water outlet hole in a spray nozzle inclined downwards pointing to a tank wall of a mixing tank to ensure the milk powder doesn’t clump on the wall (Paragraph 109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have modified the modified device of Enomoto to incorporate the dispensing element with a nozzle configured to generate a flow of water that laps the side wall of the tank as taught by Wang in an attempt to reduce calcification of minerals commonly found in water from adhering to the side of the tank.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of James et al (US Publication No. 20170027370-A1).
The modified device of Enomoto fails to teach a tank filling control comprising at least one filling sensor arranged in the tank to detect the level of hot water accumulated in the tank, and a flowmeter adapted to measure the flow rate of water fed by the feeding members to the dispensing element.
James teaches a brewing apparatus having a boiler vessel (considered to be tank), a continuous level sensor (considered to be the fill sensor) communicating liquid level to the operational program and a flow meter in line between the reservoir tank or tap and the boiler vessel (Pg. 2, paragraph 24) for the purpose of providing a reliable device with minimal user interaction (Pg. 1, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to have modified the modified device of Enomoto to incorporate a tank filling control comprising at least one filling sensor arranged in the tank to detect the level of hot water accumulated in the tank, and a flowmeter adapted to measure the flow rate of water fed by the feeding members to the dispensing element as taught by James for the purpose of providing a reliable device with minimal user interaction.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De’Longhi et al (US Publication No. 20150342396-A1).
The modified device of Enomoto fails to teach an espresso dispensing zone, distinct from the drip coffee dispensing zone, comprising at least an espresso dispensing unit in fluid communication with the feeding members to receive hot water and deliver espresso coffee.
De’Longhi teaches it is known for a coffee machine to have distinct espresso and coffee zones, wherein the espresso zone comprises, an espresso dispensing zone (Fig. 1, 19), distinct from the drip coffee dispensing zone (16), comprising at least an espresso dispensing unit (19) in fluid communication with the feeding members (circulation pump 12, boiler 13) to receive hot water and deliver espresso coffee for the purpose of providing a machine suitable for simultaneous use (Pg. 4, paragraph 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have modified the modified device of Enomoto to incorporate an espresso dispensing zone, distinct from the drip coffee dispensing zone, comprising at least an espresso dispensing unit in fluid communication with the feeding members to receive hot water and deliver espresso coffee as taught by De’Longhi for the purpose of providing a machine suitable for simultaneous use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto and Clark, and further in view of Zwart (EP Patent 3494844), Kitchen et al (U.S. Patent No. RE07793), hereinafter Kitchen, and Mnilk et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,324,551).
Enomoto teaches a coffee machine (Fig. 2, 10) which comprises a dispensing element (water supplier 60) configured to dispense hot water; feeding members (tank 40, boiler 50, hot water supply pipe 53) in fluid communication with the dispensing element (60) to feed hot water to the dispensing element; a dispensing unit (water supply opening 62) in fluid communication with the dispensing element (60) to receive hot water from the dispensing element (60), the discharge element (60) discharges the hot water into a hopper (filter basket 2) configured to accommodate a dose of coffee grounds.
Enomoto fails to teach a dispensing unit that comprises a tank arranged below the dispensing element along a longitudinal direction, and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element, said tank having a discharge opening configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank by gravity into a hopper configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee.
Clark teaches a coffee machine (400) having a tank (482) including a chamber arranged below a dispensing element (480) parallel and along a longitudinal direction (See Fig. 2) and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element (480), said tank (482) having a discharge opening (496) configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank (482) by gravity (Pg. 1, paragraph 8) into a hopper (424) configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee for the purpose of facilitating a smooth and consistent flow of properly heated water (Pg. 4, paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have modified the device of Enomoto to incorporate a dispensing unit that comprises a tank with a chamber arranged below the dispensing element along and parallel to a longitudinal direction and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element, said tank having a discharge opening configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank by gravity into a hopper configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee for the purpose of facilitating a smooth and consistent flow of properly heated water onto coffee grounds located within the hopper to create a consistent and good cup of coffee.
The modified device of Enomoto utilizes a fixed spray head (496) with multiple exits, this is different than the applicant’s use of a rotating tank with a discharge opening but performs the same function of equally distributing water over the coffee grounds.
Zwart teaches that in coffee brewing a known alternative to equally distribute water over coffee grounds is to incorporate a rotating coffee tank (Fig. 4, water spreader 20) with output nozzles (44, 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the modified device of Enomoto to incorporate substitute a rotating tank and nozzle configuration for the fixed head sprayer to achieve the predictable result of uniformly spreading water over the coffee grounds in the hopper.
The combination of the modified device of Enomoto and Zwart still does not teach a motor to rotate the tank. However, switching from rotation completed by hand to motorized rotation to perform the identical function in the food processing arts is old and well known. For example, Kitchen teaches a butter churner rotated by a hand crank (Fig. 2). Similarly, Mnilk teaches performing the same operation via a motor to rotate the cylinder (Col. 2, lines 65-67).
Based on this evidence, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to incorporate a motor to rotate the tank instead of by hand as taught by Zwart to achieve the predictable result of creating an automated system with minimal user interaction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
The modified device of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 teaches a coffee machine which comprises a dispensing element configured to dispense hot water; feeding members in fluid communication with the dispensing element to feed hot water to the dispensing element; and a dispensing unit in fluid communication with the dispensing element to receive hot water from the dispensing element; wherein the dispensing unit comprises a tank arranged below the dispensing element along a longitudinal direction and configured to collect the hot water coming from the dispensing element, said tank having a discharge opening configured to discharge the hot water accumulated in the tank by gravity into a hopper configured to accommodate a dose of ground coffee (see obvious statement for claim 1 above)
However, the modified device of Enomoto fails to teach wherein the dispensing unit comprises motor elements kinematically connected to the tank and configured to rotate the tank around a rotation axis oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction, so as to move the discharge opening of the tank with respect to the hopper.
The directing elements with an articulated portion in claim 13 most closely resemble the output nozzles (44, 46) of Zwart’s rotating tank (20), however, the water is directed due to the movement of the nozzles via the tank’s rotation and the nozzles don’t comprise an articulated portion to help direct the water. No additional prior art can be found to modify what is found in Zwart to read on claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, the applicant has not amended the new claim 12 to overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of the previous claim 5. It remains unclear from both the specification and the drawings what motor elements the applicant was in possession of at the time of filing and how the gears depicted would operate the rotating tank. The statements provided by the applicant in the remarks are not considered evidence of what the applicant had possession of at the time of filing. Instead, at the time of filing applicant disclosed in the specification, “the machine 100 comprises motorization elements 6 kinematically connected to the tank 5, and configured to rotate it about a rotation axis Y-Y” (Pg. 9, lines 4-5). Further, applicant indicated Figure 1 as a “perspective view” in the original disclosure and not an exemplary schematic.
MPEP 2181 states: "If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation.”
In this instant case, because the applicant appears to utilize a novel gear system that is not clearly shown, the structured utilized does not appear to be implicit or inherent and therefore fails 112(a) and 112(b).
Regarding point A, that the base combination of Enomoto and Clark is improper because Enomoto would be rendered inoperable because the combination would obstruct the flow of ground coffee from the grinder, this is an opinion. Further, it has been held that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. In the instant case the prior art of Enomoto already teaches it is known to be able to distribute water around the dispensing opening for the ground coffee. Examiner has incorporated the idea of a tank and a more uniform water distribution means, not a one for one structural inclusion of the pieces and parts of Clark. Increasing the depth of the doughnut, or any other shaped, distribution system (60) to thereby create a usable tank and spray head that provided the benefits set forth in Clark while maintaining access for the dispensing of ground coffee is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the applicant’s argument for claim 5 (now new claim 12) that Zwart’s invention teaches away from the application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Zwart’s invention still shows a rotating tank as claimed by applicant and the combination of Kitchen and Mnilk show that it is known in the food processing art, which is within the scope of applicant’s invention, to motorize an element that was previously non-motorized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement Zwart’s invention and motorize it for minimal user interaction. Further, Zwart never teaches away from motorization. Paragraph 5 of Zwart specifically says it is possible and can be done, it is just “not a desirable solution” for the device of Zwart. A teaching of one solution being “better” than another is not considered a teaching away.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the combination of Enomoto, Clark, and Zwart would be inoperable, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner is not suggesting a direct replacement, just that it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to try utilizing a rotating tank in an attempt to receive the advantages discussed in the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761