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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a typo in the limitation of “[[the] outer perimeter of the first recessed surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation of “the first surface further comprises a third recessed surface within the first recessed surface, the first recessed surface and the third recessed surface configured to engage with the first end of the first element” (Emphasis Added). During a phone call with the applicant, George L. Howarah on Feb. 19, 2026, Mr. George L. Howarah confirms that the claimed “third recessed surface” is referring to additional recessed surface 230 as best shown in the published specification (hereinafter “Spec.”) Fig. 2, [0032]. However, the Spec. does not disclose that the additional recessed surface 230 is engaged with first end of the first element. The limitation of “the third recessed surface configured to engage with the first end of the first element” therefore lacks written support in the instant disclosure.
Claims 2–7 are indefinite because they depends on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation of “the third recessed surface of the second element” in claim 6 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the limitation of “…or to remove the opening” does not make sense because an opening is a void space, and it is unclear how to remove a void space. Please clarify. Also noted here that this issue was pointed out in the Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 28, 2025 (Hereinafter “Non-Final Office Action”), and the applicant’s amendment does not fix the issue.
Claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “outer perimeter of the first recessed surface” is the same as that recited in claim 14 because the applicant seems to make attempts to delete the term “the” with an unfinished “[[]” sign. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 14–16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufmann et al., US 2014/0223868 A1 (“Kaufmann”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kaufmann discloses the claimed limitation of a cover (Kaufmann’s cover 110) for a filter assembly (Kaufmann’s filter system 100, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]),
the cover 110 comprising a first surface (see Fig. 6, where label 118 points) comprising a first recessed surface (see annotated Fig. 3 of Kaufmann),
wherein the first recessed surface is configured to engage with a first end (Kaufmann’s end face 54) of a first element (Kaufmann’s second element 28) of the filter assembly 10, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039],
a second surface (top surface of Kaufmann’s cover 110 as shown in its Fig. 6), opposite the first surface (where contour 118 locates), comprising a second recessed surface (Kaufmann’s inner cover contour 114), Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037],
wherein the second recessed surface 114 is configured to engage with a second end (second terminal disk 18) of a second element (Kaufmann’s filter 10) of the filter assembly 100, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037],
wherein the cover 110 is configured to install the first element 28 in an opening of the filter assembly (opening of Kaufmann’s housing 108) and to remove the first element 28 from the opening of the filter assembly 108 when the first recessed surface 118 is engaged with the first end 56 of the first element 28, and wherein the cover 110 is configured to install the second element 10 in the opening of the filter assembly 118 over the first element 28 (as best shown in Kaufmann’s Fig. 4) and to remove the second element 10 from the filter assembly 100 when the second recessed surface 114 is engaged with the second end 20 of the second element 10 (because Kaufmann discloses its cover 110 is screwed on, Kaufmann [0015], in order to remove the second element 10, one would need to unscrew the cover, which would cause the second element 10 to rotate with the cover due the connection formed between support knobs 20 and inner cover contour 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037], such movement reads on the claimed limitation), and,
wherein at least one of:
the first surface further comprises a third recessed surface within the first recessed surface (see annotated Fig. 3 of Kaufmann below), the first recessed surface and the third recessed surface configured to engage with the first end (54 of Kaufmann) of the first element (28 of Kaufmann, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039]), or
the second surface further comprises a first protruding surface within the second recessed surface, the second recessed surface and the first protruding surface configured to engage with the second end of the second element.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein the first surface is an outer surface of the cover 110 (as best shown in Kaufmann’s Fig. 4, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037],
wherein the second surface is an inner surface of the cover 110 (top surface as shown in Fig. 6, which is the surface where inner cover contour 114 locates, as best shown in Fig. 4, this is an inner surface of the cover 110). Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037].
Regarding claim 3:
Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein a shape of an outer perimeter of the first recessed surface corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 56 of the first end of the first element 28, and wherein the first recessed surface is configured to engage with the protruding surface 56 of the first end of the first element, Kaufmann Figs. 5–6, [0039].
Regarding claim 4:
Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein a shape of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface 114 corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 20 of the second end of the second element 10, and wherein the second recessed surface 114 is configured to engage with the protruding surface 10 of the second end of the second element, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037].
Regarding claim 5:
Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein the second recessed surface 114 is configured to prevent a rotational movement of the second element 10 when the second recessed surface 117 engages with the second end 20 of the second element because Kaufmann discloses the connection between support knobs 20 and inner cover contour 114 provide support on the housing 108 both axially and radially, and thus a rotationally movement of the second element 10 is prevented due to the axial support. Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037].
Regarding claim 8:
Kaufmann discloses a method of using a cover 110 for a filter assembly 100, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0038]–[0039], the method comprising:
using a first recessed surface (Kaufmann’s inner cover contour 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]) of a first surface (bottom surface of cover 110 as shown in Fig. 4) of the cover to engage with a first end 18 of a first element 10 of the filter assembly 100, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037];
using the cover 110 to install the first element 10 in an opening (opening of housing 108) of the filter assembly 100 or to remove the first element 10 from the opening (of housing 108) after the first recessed surface (114 of Kaufmann) of the first surface of the cover 110 engages with the first end 18 of the first element 10, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037];
using a second recessed surface (Kaufmann’s follower contour 118, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039]) of a second surface (top surface of cover 110 as shown in Fig. 4) of the cover to engage with a second end 54 of a second element 28 of the filter assembly 100, Id.;
wherein the second surface is opposite the first surface, Kaufmann Fig. 4, and
wherein a length of the second recessed surface exceeds a length of the first recessed surface (as clearly shown in Kaufmann’s Fig. 4, a cross-sectional length from left to right for the second recessed surface 118 exceeds a cross-sectional length of the first recessed surface 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4); and
using the cover 110 to install the second element 28 in the opening (of housing 108) or to remove the second element 28 from the opening after the second recessed surface of the second surface of the cover engages with the second end of the second element, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039].
Regarding claim 9:
Kaufmann discloses that the method of claim 8, wherein using the cover 110 to install the first element 10 in the opening of housing 108 or to remove the opening comprises:
rotating the cover 110 in a first direction to install the first element in the opening and rotating the cover in a second direction to remove the first element from the opening (Kaufmann discloses its cover 110 is a screw on cover, and Kaufmann’s cover comprising inner cover contour 114 that engages with support knobs 20 located on first end 18 and therefore provide support to filter 10 both axially and radially on the housing 108, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]. It is thus understood that installing the first element 10 requires screwing and unscrewing of cover 110, which requires rotation in opposite direction to provide proper axially and radially support to the filter, which is necessary for a filter installation.)
Regarding claim 10:
Kaufmann discloses that the method of claim 8, wherein using the cover 110 to install the second element 28 in the opening (of housing 108) or to remove the second element 28 from the opening comprises rotating the cover110 in a first direction to install the second element in the opening; and rotating the cover in a second direction to remove the second element from the opening (because Kaufmann discloses its contour 56 can be used for release the screw connection 32, which is the screw connection used to install the second element in the housing 108, screwing and unscrewing requires opposite directions, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039]).
Regarding claim 11:
Kaufmann discloses that the method of claim 8, wherein the first surface is an inner surface of the cover, and wherein the second surface is an outer surface of the cover as best shown in Fig. 4, Kaufmann Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 14:
Kaufmann discloses that a system 100 comprising:
a filter assembly 10, 28 comprising a first element 28 and a second element 10, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039];
a cover 110 comprising:
an outer surface (top surface as shown in Fig. 4) comprising a first recessed surface 118, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039];
wherein the first recessed surface 118 is configured to engage with a first end 54 of the first element 28, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039], and
an inner surface (bottom surface of cover 110 as shown in Fig. 4) comprising a second recessed surface 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037],
wherein a first length of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface (Kaufmann discloses its inner cover contour 114 engages with support knobs 20, which are arranged in a circular shape, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037], Kaufmann’s contour 114 would therefore necessarily have a complementary circular shape to match the support knobs, and the outer perimeter formed by the circular shape of inner cover contour 114 would read on the claimed “first length of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface”) exceeds a second length of an outer perimeter of the first recessed surface (Kaufmann’s first recesses surface 118, shown in Fig. 4, is located inside the circular shaped outer perimeter formed by the cover contour 114, and therefore, it would have “a second length of an outer perimeter” that is smaller than the first length because it is entirely located inside the outer perimeter formed by Kaufmann’s inner contour 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]),
wherein the second recessed surface 114 is configured to engage with a second end 18 of the second element 10, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037],
wherein the cover 110 is configured to remove the first element 28 from the filter assembly 10, 28 when the first recessed surface 118 is engaged with the first end 54 of the first element 28, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039].
wherein the cover 110 is configured to remove the second element 10 from the filter assembly 10, 28 when the second recessed surface 114 is engaged with the second end 18 of the second element 28 because Kaufmann discloses its cover 110 is a screw-on cover, and Kaufmann discloses its structure 114 and 20 allows the filter 10 to be supported on the housing 108 both axially and radially, which means, when the cover is screwed on, there will be both axial and radial force between structure 114 and 20, which means at the beginning of unscrewing (during the removing process), due to the axial and radial force, the second recessed surface 114 would be engaged with the second end 18 of the second element, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037].
Regarding claim 15:
Kaufmann discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein a shape of the outer perimeter of the first recessed surface (118 of Kaufmann) corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 56 of the first end of the first element (28 of Kaufmann, as best shown in Fig. 6, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0042]).
Regarding claim 16:
Kaufmann discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein a shape of the outer perimeter of the second recessed surface 114 corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 20 of the second end of the second element (as best shown in Fig. 4, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]).
Regarding claim 19:
Kaufmann discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein the second recessed surface 114 is configured to prevent a rotational movement of the second element 10 when the second recessed surface 114 engages with the second end 18 of the second element 10 because when Kaufmann’s screw-on cover 110 is tightly screwed, the engagement between 114 and 20 supports second element 10 both radially and axially, which mean rotation movement of the element is prevented when screw on is tightly screwed, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 6–7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaufmann in view of Coulonvaux et al., US 2014/0325945 A1 (“Coulonvaux”).
Regarding claim 6:
Kaufmann does not disclose that the cover of claim 1, wherein the second surface 114 further comprising a second protruding surface configured to engage with a recessed surface of the second element 10, and wherein the cover 110 is configured to prevent an axial movement of the second element when the second recessed surface engages with the second end of the second element and when the second protruding surface engages with the third recessed surface of the second element.
Similar to Kaufmann, Coulonvaux discloses a filter system 150 with a main filter element 154 and a safety filter 180, Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0051]. Similar to Kaufmann, Coulonvaux discloses a service cover 174, Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0052]. Similar to Kaufmann, Coulonvaux’s service cover comprises a second surface 282 comprising a second recessed surface (surface between bumps 280) configured to engage with a second element (protrusion between slots 260), Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0063]. Additionally, Coulonvaux discloses the second surface 282 includes the protruding surface 284 (the claimed “second protruding surface”) configured to engage with a recessed surface 256 of the second element 154, Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0062]–[0064]. Coulonvaux’s cover 174 is capable of preventing an axial movement of the second element 154 when the second recessed surface engages with the second end of the second element (interaction between element 280 and 258) and when the protruding surface 284 engages with the recesses surface 256 of the second element because Coulonvaux discloses its cover is designed to support and push the safety element in place and participate to maintain the seal between the safety filter element 156 and safety liner 180, Coulonvaux [0064]. Such design would require no axial movement of the second element. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Coulonvaux’s design in Kaufmann to add an additional layer of stability to Kaufmann’s system against malfunction due to vibration.
Regarding claim 7:
Kaufmann does not disclose that the cover of claim 1, wherein the cover 110 is configured to cause the second element 10 to prevent an axial movement of the first element 28 within the second element.
However, Coulonvaux discloses a first element 156 comprising a central cone extension 196 and a second element 154 with a central bump 254. Coulonvaux’s Figs. 17, 20–21, [0056] and [0062]. Coulonvaux discloses central bump 254 is constructed to receive the central cone extension 196 when the first element 154 is fully inserted within housing interior 230, and the contact between central cone extension 196 and central bump 254 help hold the safety filter element 156 in place. Coulonvaux’s Figs. 17, 20–21, [0056] and [0062]. Coulonvaux discloses its service cover 174 comprising a reverse cone 286 that receives central bump 254, which is designed to guide, support and push the safety element 156 in place. Coulonvaux Fig. 21 and 24, [0064]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Coulonvaux’s design in Kaufmann to add an additional layer of stability to Kaufmann’s system against malfunction due to vibration.
Regarding claim 20:
Kaufmann does not disclose that the system of claim 14, wherein the inner surface further includes a protruding surface configured to engage with a third recessed surface of the second element, and wherein the cover is configured to prevent an axial movement of the second element.
Similar to Kaufmann, Coulonvaux discloses a filter system 150 with a main filter element 154 and a safety filter 180. Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0051]. Similar to Kaufmann, Coulonvaux discloses a service cover 174. Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0052]. Similar to Kaufmann, Coulonvaux’s surface cover comprises a second surface 282 comprising a second recessed surface (surface between bumps 280) configured to engage with a second element (protrusion between slots 260). Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0063]. Additionally, Coulonvaux discloses a second surface 282 includes the protruding surface 284 configured to engage with a third recessed surface 256 of the second element 154. Coulonvaux Fig. 24, [0062]–[0064]. Coulonvaux’s cover 174 is capable of preventing an axial movement of the second element 154 when the second recessed surface engages with the second end of the second element (interaction between element 280 and 258) and when the protruding surface 284 engages with the third recesses surface 256 of the second element because Coulonvaux discloses its cover is designed to support and push the safety element in place and participate to maintain the seal between the safety filter element 156 and safety liner 180. Coulonvaux [0064]. Such design requires no axial movement of the second element. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Coulonvaux’s design in Kaufmann to add an additional layer of stability to Kaufmann’s system against malfunction due to vibration.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaufmann in view of Schrage et al., US 2006/0254229 A1 (“Schrage”).
Regarding claim 12:
Kaufmann discloses that the method of claim 8, wherein a shape of an outer perimeter of the first recessed surface 114 corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 20 of the first end 18 of the first element 10, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037].
Kaufmann does not disclose that the shape, of the outer perimeter of the first recessed surface, is a polygon.
Similar to Kaufmann, Schrage discloses a filer system 69 comprising a service cover 73 engages with end cap 9 of cartridge 1, Schrage Figs. 3 and 14, [0159]. Schrage discloses the cover 73 has a polygon shaped contour that engages with end cap 9 of cartridge 1. Schrage Fig. 14, [0159]. Schrage discloses its design is related with improved structures between air cleaner housing and filter cartridges for advantageous interaction, Schrage [0067]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing for Kaufmann’s recessed surface 114 to be of polygon shaped for the benefits disclosed above. Additionally, such shape is known in the air filtration art to be suitable to use as contour to engage with a filter cover and end cap of a filter.
Regarding claim 17:
While Kaufmann does not disclose that the system of claim 14, wherein a shape, of outer perimeter of the first recessed surface 118, is a polygon, Kaufmann discloses its follower contour (118) could be a polygon, Kaufmann [0010]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaufmann’s follower contour 118 to be a polygon because Kaufmann discloses a polygon could be the shape of the follower contour 118.
Kaufmann does not disclose that a shape, of the outer perimeter of the second recessed surface 114 is a polygon.
Similar to Kaufmann, Schrage discloses a filer system 69 comprising a service cover 73 engages with end cap 9 of cartridge 1, Schrage Figs. 3 and 14, [0159]. Schrage discloses the cover 73 has a polygon shaped contour that engages with end cap 9 of cartridge 1, Schrage Fig. 14 [0159]. Schrage discloses its design is related with improved structures between air cleaner housing and filter cartridges for advantageous interaction, Schrage [0067]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing for Kaufmann’s recessed surface 114 to be of polygon shaped for the benefits disclosed above. Additionally, such shape is known in the air filtration art to be suitable to use as contour to engage with a filter cover and end cap of a filter.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaufmann.
Regarding claim 13:
Kaufmann discloses that the method of claim 8, wherein a shape of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface 118 corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 56 of the second end 54 of the second element 28, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0042].
Kaufmann does not explicitly disclose that the shape, of the outer perimeter of the second recessed surface 118 is a polygon.
However, Kaufmann discloses its follower contour (118) could be a polygon, Kaufmann [0010]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaufmann’s follower contour 118 to be a polygon because Kaufmann discloses a polygon could be the shape of the follower contour 118.
Regarding claim 21:
Kaufmann does not disclose that the system of claim 14, wherein the cover is configured to rotate in a same direction to remove the first element and the second element from the filter assembly.
However, there are only two possibilities in rotation: clock-wise, or counter clock-wise. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success support conclusion of obviousness, MPEP 2143(I). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to design the cover to rotate in one direction for operational convenience, for example, based on an operator being left-handed or right-handed, a person of ordinary skill in the art could design two different models with one rotate clock-wise and the other rotate counter clock-wise.
Response to Arguments
Interview
The examiner points out that the current amendment differs from what is disclosed in the interview agenda. For example, the proposed amended claim 1 provided in the interview agenda recites a limitation of “the second surface comprises a third recessed surface”. Whereas in the current amended claim 1, what is recited is “the first surface further comprises a third recessed surface”. The examiner notes that the presented amendment in the current claim set would not overcome Kaufmann. Details are provided in the rejection section above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner maintains the current rejection regarding claim 9, because the amendment does not overcome the rejection. New grounds of rejection are made in view of the amendment in claims 6 and 17, details are provided above.
Claim Rejections
The applicant argues that Kaufmann does not disclose the amendment as recited in claim 1 and claim 9, Applicant Rem. dated Nov. 20, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 10.
In response, the examiner points out that each and every limitation of claim 1 and claim 9 are mapped to Kaufmann above. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant includes allowable subject matter originally belong to claim 18 without including all intervening dependent claims and argues that claim 14 is allowable because the office action expressly acknowledged that Kaufmann does not disclose the claimed limitation originally belong to claim 18, Applicant Rem. p. 10.
In response, the examiner points out that in the Non-Final Office Action, the examiner explicitly states “Kaufmann does not disclose that the system of claim 16….”, Non-Final Office Action, p. 14, para. 63. Applicant’s interpretation is therefore not accurate.
New Claim
New claim is rejected, please see details above.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776