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
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 16-21 remain pending in the application. Newly added claims 22 and 23 are also pending in the application.
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, 3, 4, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Alan Culling (US 20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of
Michael L. Wolf et al. (US 20160309735 A1 – hereinafter Wolf).
Regarding claim 1, Culling teaches a portioning belt unit for a discharge conveyor of a slicing machine comprising: a base body (Fig. 3, Conveyor 2), a pivot unit (Fig. 3, Conveyor 1) pivotable relative to the base body about a pivot axis (Fig. 4a, axis defined by gear pictured in Fig. 4a) extending in a transverse direction, the pivot unit comprising: a foremost, first deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, curved shape which defines the leftmost turn of the belt in Fig. 4a) in a transport direction of the portioning belt unit, a rearmost, last deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, rightmost drum defined by the keyed bore) in the transport direction, wherein the last deflecting drum is parallel to the first deflecting drum, a portioning belt (Fig. 4a, the last seven belts which run over both the foremost and rearmost drums) configured to circulate over the deflecting drums and having an upper run (Fig. 4c, the top portion of the unit which is completely horizontal in the position depicted in Fig. 4c), a drive shaft (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be the drive shaft), which can be driven in a controlled manner (Fig. 3, Control Unit 13; [0018]) for driving the portioning belt and which is operatively connected to one of the deflecting drums (Fig. 4a, a belt can be seen connecting the rearmost drum and the drive shaft) wherein viewed in an axial direction of the deflecting drums, the upper run of the portioning belt comprises a rear upper run section (Fig. 4a, rear upper run section is defined as the portion of the upper run that is to the right of the drive shaft in Fig. 4a) and a front upper run section (Fig. 4a, front upper run section is defined as the portion of the upper run that is to the left of the drive shaft in Fig. 4a) with an intermediate angle therebetween measured at an underside of the upper run of between 90° and 180° (Fig. 4a and Fig. 4c, position of the front upper run section with respect to the rear upper run section can be seen to stay between 90 degrees and 180 degrees), and the pivot unit comprises an additional deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a).
Culling fails to teach the additional deflecting drum having an effective diameter equal to
or greater than that of the last deflecting drum and the first deflecting drum has a larger effective
diameter than that of the last deflecting drum.
However, Wolf teaches a conveyor unit where the last deflecting drum and the additional
deflecting drum have equal radii (Fig. 2, Deflection Rolls 39a, 39b, 43a, 43b; [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the last deflecting drum and the additional deflecting drum of Culling to have
equal effective diameters as taught by Wolf as a matter of combining prior art elements
according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the
predictable result is the last and additional deflecting drums having equal effective diameters.
Further, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a
recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, which would not perform differently than
the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device
Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first deflecting drum of Culling to have an effective diameter greater than the last deflecting drum as taught by as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, which would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 3, Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 1,
wherein the pivot axis (Fig. 4a, axis defined by gear pictured in Fig. 4a) is arranged in the transport direction between a rotation axis of the first deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, curved shape
which defines the leftmost turn of the belt in Fig. 4a) and a rotation axis of the last deflecting
drum (Fig. 4a, rightmost drum defined by the keyed bore).
Regarding claim 4, Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 1,
wherein between the rear upper run section (Fig. 4a, rear upper run section is defined as the
portion of the upper run that is to the right of the drive shaft in Fig. 4a) and the front t upper run
section (Fig. 4a, front upper run section is defined as the portion of the upper run that is to the
left of the drive shaft in Fig. 4a) the upper run (Fig. 4c, the top portion of the unit which is
completely horizontal in the position depicted in Fig. 4c) is supported by either the additional
deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, the upper run can be seen to be supported by the additional deflecting
drum), or a belt support plate.
Regarding claim 11, Culling further teaches a slicing machine (Fig. 1, Slicing Machine
4) for slicing calibers (Fig. 3, Log 5) into slices (Fig. 3, Slices 6; [0018]) and producing shingled
or stacked portions from slices, the slicing machine comprising: a cutting unit (Fig. 1, Slicing
Blade 3), a feed unit (Fig. 1, chute visible behind Slicing Blade 3) for feeding at least one caliber
to the cutting unit, a discharge conveyor (Fig. 1, Conveyors 1 and 2) comprising the portioning
belt unit according to claim 1, a drive socket (Fig. 4a, socket defined by the gear in Fig. 4a),
which can be driven in a controlled manner, for coupling with the drive shaft (Fig. 4a, drum
defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be the drive shaft) of the
portioning belt unit, and a control (Fig. 3, Control Unit 13; [0018]) for controlling moving parts
of the slicing machine.
Regarding claim 18, Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 3, wherein the pivot axis is coincident with a rotation axis of the drive shaft (Fig. 4a, drive shaft
defined by gear in Fig. 4a also defines the pivot axis of the unit).
Regarding claim 19, Culling further teaches a portioning belt unit for a discharge conveyor of a slicing machine comprising: a base body (Fig. 3, Conveyor 2); a pivot unit (Fig. 3, Conveyor 1) pivotable relative to the base body about a pivot axis (Fig. 4a, axis defined by gear pictured in Fig. 4a) extending in a transverse direction, the pivot unit comprising: a foremost, first deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, curved shape which defines the leftmost turn of the belt in Fig. 4a) in a transport direction of the portioning belt unit; a rearmost, last deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, rightmost drum defined by the keyed bore) in the transport direction, wherein the last deflecting drum is parallel to the first deflecting drum; a portioning belt (Fig. 4a, the last seven belts which run over both the foremost and rearmost drums) configured to circulate over the deflecting drums and having an upper run (Fig. 4c, the top portion of the unit which is completely horizontal in the position depicted in Fig. 4c); and a guide element (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be the guide element) between the first deflecting drum and the last deflecting drum, wherein the guide element is configured to guide the portioning belt; wherein, viewed in an axial direction of the deflecting drums, the upper run of the portioning belt comprises a rear upper run section (Fig. 4a, rear upper run section is defined as the portion of the upper run that is to the right of the drive shaft in Fig. 4a) and a front upper run section (Fig. 4a, front upper run section is defined as the portion of the upper run that is to the left of the drive shaft in Fig. 4a) with an intermediate angle therebetween measured at an underside of the upper run of between 90° and 180° (Fig. 4a and Fig. 4c, position of the front upper run section with respect to the rear upper run section can be seen to stay between 90 degrees and 180 degrees).
Culling fails to teach that the first deflecting drum has a larger effective diameter than
that of the last deflecting drum.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the first deflecting drum of Culling to have an effective diameter greater than the
last deflecting drum as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, which would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 20, Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim
19, wherein the guide element (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is
interpreted by the examiner to be the guide element) is configured to keep the upper run (Fig. 4c,
the top portion of the unit which is completely horizontal in the position depicted in Fig. 4c) of
the portioning belt (Fig. 4a, the last seven belts which run over both the foremost and rearmost
drums, the upper run of the belts can be seen to be curved convexly outwards as a result of
contact with the guide element) curved convexly outwardly between the first deflecting drum
(Fig. 4a, curved shape which defines the leftmost turn of the belt in Fig. 4a) and the last
deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, rightmost drum defined by the keyed bore).
Regarding claim 21, Culling further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 11,
wherein the additional deflecting drum is configured to keep the upper run of the portioning belt
curved convexly outwardly between the first deflecting drum and the last deflecting drum (Fig.
3, middle drum of Conveyor 1 keeps belt curved convexly outwards throughout the entirety of
the upper run), and wherein inclination of the rear upper run section is adjustable with respect to
the cutting unit to inhibit slipping down of slices against the transport direction that contact the
rear upper run section (Fig. 4A-C; [0021] – the rear upper run is angled upwards as more and
more pieces stack to keep them from falling).
Regarding claim 22, Culling further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 11, wherein the portioning belt unit (Fig. 3, portioning belt unit comprising Conveyor 2) is operable to produce the shingled or stacked portions from the slices ([0021] – shingled portions formed from slices are transported by Conveyor 2), and the discharge conveyor (Fig. 1, Conveyors 1 and 2) is operable to convey the portions away from the cutting unit.
Regarding claim 23, Culling further teaches a slicing machine comprising: - a cutting unit (Fig. 1, Slicing Blade 3) operable to cut a caliber into slices, - a feed unit (Fig. 1, chute visible behind Slicing Blade 3) for feeding the caliber to the cutting unit, and - a discharge conveyor (Fig. 1, Conveyors 1 and 2) comprising the portioning belt unit according to claim 19, wherein the discharge conveyor is operable to convey the slices, or portions formed by the slices, away from the cutting unit.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Alan Culling (US
20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of Michael L. Wolf et al. (US 20160309735
A1 – hereinafter Wolf) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of David Hansen et al. (US 20090188358 A1 – hereinafter Hansen).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 3 above.
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach the portioning belt unit according to
claim 3, wherein the pivot axis is coincident with the rotation axis of the first deflecting drum.
However, Hansen teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 3, wherein the pivot
axis (Fig. 55, Axis 6012 of Conveyor 6002; [0223]) is coincident with the rotation axis of the
first deflecting drum (Fig. 55, Idle Roller 6024 of Conveyor 6002). Therefore, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the portioning belt
unit of the combination of Culling and Wolf such that the pivot axis is coincident with the rotation axis of the first deflecting drum as taught by Hansen as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the pivot axis being coincident with the rotation axis of the first deflecting drum.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alan
Culling (US 20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of Michael L. Wolf et al. (US
20160309735 A1 – hereinafter Wolf) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glen Pryor et al. (US 9950869 B1- hereinafter Pryor).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 1
above.
Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 1, wherein the drive
shaft (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be
the drive shaft) has an input end (Fig. 4a, portion of the driveshaft where the gear is located) and
an output end (Fig. 4a, portion of the drive shaft where the driveshaft is connected by a belt to
the last deflecting drum only), the drive shaft extends in transverse direction over an entire width
of the portioning belt (Fig. 4a, the driveshaft which is the drum defined by the gear pictured in
Fig. 4a can be seen to extend over the entire width of the portioning belt), and the output end is
arranged on an operator side (Fig. 1, examiner interprets that an operator side would be the open
side not covered by a guard) of the portioning belt unit.
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach that the output end and the input end are arranged on opposite sides of the portioning belt with respect to a longitudinal center plane. However, Pryor teaches a portioning belt unit where the output end (Fig. 8, pulley at the end of the leftmost Motor Shaft 66) and input end (Fig. 8, end of leftmost Motor Shaft 66 that connects with leftmost Motor 68) of a driveshaft (Fig. 8, leftmost Motor Shaft 66) are arranged on opposite sides of a portioning belt (Fig. 8, Belt Member 84) with respect to a longitudinal center plane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the output end of the combination of Culling and Wolf such that the output end and the input end are arranged on opposite sides of the portioning belt as taught by Pryor as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the output end and the input end being arranged on opposite sides of the portioning belt.
Regarding claim 6, Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 5, wherein the drive shaft (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be the drive shaft) is arranged, as seen in its axial direction, between the upper run (Fig. 4c, the top portion of the unit which is completely horizontal in the position depicted in Fig. 4c) and a lower run (Fig. 4c, the bottom portion of the portioning belt which is opposite to the upper run) of the portioning belt (Fig. 4a, the last seven belts which run over both the foremost and rearmost drums), and the drive shaft comprises the additional deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a) over which the upper run of the portioning belt is circulatable.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 1 above.
Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 1, wherein the drive
shaft (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be
the drive shaft) has an input end (Fig. 4a, portion of the driveshaft where the gear is located) and
an output end (Fig. 4a, portion of the drive shaft where the driveshaft is connected by a belt to
the last deflecting drum only), the input end and the output end are arranged on a same side of a
longitudinal center plane of the portioning belt unit (Fig. 4a, the described input and output unit
are located on the side closer to the viewer defined by a longitudinal center plane of the
portioning belt unit).
Claims 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Alan Culling (US 20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of Michael L. Wolf et al.
(US 20160309735 A1 – hereinafter Wolf) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Josef Mayer (US 20140174891 A1 - hereinafter Mayer).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 1 above.
Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 1, wherein the drive
shaft (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the gear pictured in Fig. 4a is interpreted by the examiner to be
the drive shaft) is operatively connected via a belt (Fig. 4a, the drive shaft is connected via a belt
to the last deflecting drum, which is connected to the first deflecting drum with a separate belt,
therefore operatively connecting the driveshaft and the first deflecting drum) to the first
deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, curved shape which defines the leftmost turn of the belt in Fig. 4a).
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach that the belt is a toothed belt.However, Mayer teaches a conveyor where a toothed belt (Fig. 8, Drive Belt 27; [0102])
is used to connect two drums (Fig. 8, Belt Wheel 44 and Drive Shaft 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the belt of the combination of Culling and Wolf to be toothed as taught by Mayer. It is well known in the art that using a toothed belt is beneficial as it can deliver more
power than a synchronous belt, and is generally less noisy.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 1 above.
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach the portioning belt unit according to claim 1, wherein the portioning belt unit is designed in such a way that the portioning belt unit can be replaced on a slicing machine quickly and without special tools.
However, Mayer teaches a portioning belt unit (Fig. 1, Conveyor Belt Unit 13) which is
designed in such a way that the portioning belt unit can be replaced on a slicing machine quickly
and without special tools ([0041] and [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the portioning belt unit of the combination of Culling and Wolf such that the portioning belt unit can be replaced on a slicing machine quickly and without special tools as taught by Mayer. Doing so is beneficial as it allows thorough cleaning of the conveyor belt (Mayer, [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 11 above.
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach the slicing machine according to claim 11, wherein the portioning belt unit and the discharge conveyor are embodied in such a way that the portioning belt unit can be pulled out of the slicing machine in the transverse direction after releasing a locking device.
However, Mayer teaches wherein the portioning belt unit and the discharge conveyor are embodied in such a way that the portioning belt unit (Fig. 12b, Conveyor Belt Unit 13) can be
pulled out of the slicing machine in the transverse direction (Fig. 14b; [0114] – [0115], examiner
interprets that once the conveyor belt unit 13 is lifted from support bars 65 and 67, it is capable
of being pulled out of the machine in a transverse direction) after releasing a locking device (Fig.
12b, Lever 19; [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the portioning belt unit of the combination of Culling and Wolf such that the portioning belt unit can be pulled out of the slicing machine in the transverse direction after releasing a locking device as taught by Mayer. Doing so provides the benefit of allowing
thorough cleaning of the conveyor belt (Mayer, [0007]) while preventing unintentional
unlatching (Mayer, [0077]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alan Culling
(US 20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of Michael L. Wolf et al. (US
20160309735 A1 – hereinafter Wolf) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng-yong Liang (CN 105706592 A – hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 1 above.
Culling further teaches the portioning belt unit according to claim 1, wherein the pivot
unit (Fig. 3, Conveyor 1) comprises the additional deflecting drum (Fig. 4a, drum defined by the
gear pictured in Fig. 4a) which is formed as a drivable, middle deflecting drum positioned
between the first deflecting drum and the last deflecting drum and configured to drive the
portioning belt (Fig. 4a, the drive shaft is connected via a belt to the last deflecting drum, which is connected to the first deflecting drum with a separate belt, therefore configured to drive the
portioning belt).
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach wherein a wrap angle of the middle deflecting drum is a maximum of 35°.
However, Liang teaches a belt on a food processing machine with a wrap angle of the
belt (Fig. 9, Flexible Belt 6) of less than 180° (Page 9 para 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the wrap angle of the middle deflecting drum of the combination of Culling and Wolf to be a maximum of 35° as taught by Liang as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the wrap angle of the middle deflecting drum being a maximum of 35°. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the wrap angle since it has
been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by
the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ
90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alan Culling
(US 20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of Michael L. Wolf et al. (US
20160309735 A1 – hereinafter Wolf) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Uwe Reifenhaeuser (EP 2298515 A1 – hereinafter Reifenhaeuser).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 11 above.
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach the slicing machine according to claim 11, wherein viewed in the transverse direction, the rear upper run section of the portioning belt is settable to be approximately parallel to a cutting plane of the cutting unit, with a deviation therefrom of at most +/- 10°.
However, Reifenhaeuser teaches a slicing machine wherein viewed in the transverse
direction, the rear upper run section (Fig. 8, top right portion of Conveyor 14) of the portioning
belt (Fig. 8, Conveyor 14 and 15) is settable to be approximately parallel to a cutting plane (Fig.
8, plane defined by Knife 5) of the cutting unit (Fig. 8, unit shown in Fig. 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the slicing machine of the combination of Culling and Wolf such that the rear upper section is settable to be approximately parallel to a cutting plane of the cutting unit. Doing so provides the benefit of allowing for the gentle transfer of slices (Reifenhaeuser, page 5 para 6).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alan Culling
(US 20060107808 A1- hereinafter Culling) in view of Michael L. Wolf et al. (US
20160309735 A1 – hereinafter Wolf) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rong Zeng et al. (CN 108262780 A – hereinafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Culling and Wolf is detailed in claim 1 above.
The combination of Culling and Wolf fails to teach the portioning belt unit according to claim 1, wherein the angle is between 115° and 145°.
However, Zeng teaches a food processing apparatus with a conveyor belt having an intermediate angle between a rear upper run section and a front upper run section that is 130°
(Fig. 1, Feeding Belt 2.2; Page 4, para 3 in “Specific executing examples” - the inclined angle is
50°, examiner interprets that upper portion of the conveyor belt after the bend is horizontal with
the ground, leading to an intermediate angle between a rear upper run section and a front upper
run section of 130°).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the angle of Culling and Wolf to be between 115° and 145° as taught by Zeng as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, Page 4 lines 8-9) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 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. Sigfrid is no longer relied upon in the rejection of claims 1 and 19.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724