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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have minorly changed the scope of the claimed invention, but the same prior art reads upon the claimed invention using a slight modification.
On pages 17-19 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the amendments made to withdrawn independent Claim 1 to reflect the limitations in elected independent Claim 31. Applicant requests rejoinder in the event of allowance for independent Claim 31. Examiner indicates that independent Claim 31 is not allowable as presently examined, so this remark is considered moot for the time being.
On page 19, Applicant discusses the previous claim objections and 112 rejections made on the claims, and the amendments made to obviate them. The Examiner has withdrawn them in response.
On pages 19-21, Applicant summarizes the previous prior art rejections made on the claims and then argues against the previous prior art rejection of independent Claim 31, involving anticipatory reference Kelada, (US 6,099,735). Specifically, Applicant argues that Kelada does not disclose the amended claim features "a base housing having an upper surface comprising a plurality of connectors configured to be selectively attached to and detached from a plurality of corresponding connectors at a lower surface of a magazine housing" and "a plurality of detachable base valves disposed on the upper surface of the base housing at locations aligned with a plurality of corresponding magazine valves disposed on the lower surface of the magazine housing." Applicant summarizes the disclosure of Kelada arguing that flowboard 12 does not have a housing having an upper surface comprising a plurality of connectors configured to be selectively attached to and detached from a plurality of corresponding connectors at lower surface of the magazine housing. Appilcant argues that the cartridges in Kelda are mounted directly on flowboard 12, and cover 14 “merely encloses” the cartridges mounted directly on the flowboard12. However, the Examiner notes that the cartridges inherently have their own connectors to which the cartridges are able to join to the flowboard 12 which itself has its own inherent connectors, such that the cartridges and flowboard are assembled and disassembled as desired, (Cover 14 and Cartridges are removable from Flowboard 12, See Figures 1-3, See column 21, lines 52-63, column 23, lines 4-8). The Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive as a result. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims do not specify to what the base valves are detachable, just that they are detachable. Thus, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31-33, 36, 37 & 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelada, (US 6,099,735).
Regarding Claims 31-33, 36, 37 & 47, Kelada discloses a base configured to be attached to a magazine of a water filtration system, (Flowboard 12 connected to various Cartridges 24/26/28/30/32 and Housing Cover 14, See Figures 1, 2A, See column 9, lines 8-12), the base comprising: a base housing having an upper surface comprising a plurality of connectors configured to be selectively attached to and detached from a plurality of corresponding connectors at a lower surface of a magazine housing, (Cover 14 and Cartridges are removable from Flowboard 12, See Figures 1-3, See column 21, lines 52-63, column 23, lines 4-8), wherein the base housing does not house a water filter or water filter receptacle, (None of the Cartridges 24/26/28/30/32 are included within or integrally with Flowboard 12, they are replaceable/detachable, See Figure 1-3, See column 12, lines 55-67, column 13, lines 1-3): a plurality of detachable base valves disposed on the upper surface of the base housing at locations aligned with a plurality of corresponding magazine valves disposed on the lower surface of the magazine housing, (Cover 14 and Cartridges are removable from Flowboard 12, See Figures 1-3, See column 21, lines 52-63, column 23, lines 4-8, Needle Valve 51b coupled to Valve 50, Check Valve 42 coupled to Valve 48via Line 194, See Figure 3, See column 12, lines 9-16, column 11, lines 24-43) , the plurality of corresponding magazine valves comprising a magazine input water valve, (Valve 50, See Figure 3, See column 12, lines 9-16), and a magazine output valve, (Valve 48, See Figure 2B, 3, See column 11, lines 24-43), the plurality of detachable base valves comprising: a base input water valve configured to be coupled to the magazine input water valve, (Needle Valve 51b coupled to Valve 50 via Line 194, See Figure 3, See column 12, lines 9-16), and a base first valve configured to be coupled to the magazine output valve, (Check Valve 42 coupled to Valve 48 via Lines 174 to 146, See Figure 2B, 3, See column 11, lines 24-43); a first fitting configured to receive input water, (Inlet Water Port 100, and conduit fitting 102, See Figures 2B, 3, See column 9, lines 19-21), a second fitting configured to provide drinking water with less impurities than the input water, (Fitting 51, Mounting Block 51c, to Spigot 16, See Figures 2B, 3, See column 11, lines 63-67, column 12, lines 1-3), a first solenoid valve having a water path coupled between the first fitting and the base input water valve, (Solenoid Inlet Valve 22 with path connected between Port 100 and Valve 48, See Figure 2B, 3, See column 11, lines 24-43), and a first switch, (Switch 38, See Figure 2B, 3, See column 11, lines 1-4, lines 55-58), wherein the base is configured to detach from the magazine, (Cover 14 and Cartridges are removable from Flowboard 12, See Figures 1-3, See column 21, lines 52-63, column 23, lines 4-8), thereby causing the first switch to transition from a first state to a second state, (See column 21, lines 52-65), wherein the first solenoid valve is configured to close in response to the first switch transitioning from the first state to the second state, (See column 21, lines 52-65).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 32: The base of claim 31, further comprising: a third fitting configured to be coupled to a water storage tank, (Conduit/Mounting Assembly for Water Storage Vessel 34, See Figures 1-3, See column 9, lines 33-47); and a second solenoid valve having a water path coupled between the base first valve and the third fitting, (Solenoid Valve 40 physically in between Check Valve 42 and Conduit/Mounting Assembly for Water Storage Vessel 34, See Figure 3,See column 9, lines 39-49), wherein the base is configured to cause the second solenoid valve to close when the first switch transitions from the first state to the second state, (See column 21, lines 60-64, See column 17, lines 40-49).
Claim 33: The base of claim 32, wherein the base further comprises a permeate pump coupled to the base first valve via a first water tube, and coupled to the second solenoid valve via a second water tube, (Circulation Pump 38 connects to either Valve 42 or Valve 48, and to Solenoid Valve 40 via conduits 152/158/160, and 164, See Figure 3, See column 11, lines 49-67, column 12, lines 1-3, Kelada).
Claim 36: The base of claim 32, wherein the base comprises an inlet manifold that comprises the first, second, and third fittings, the inlet manifold being located in a first side of the base, (Flow Board 12 contains its fittings/ports/connectors on the side perimeter or inside the board 12, See Figures 1-3), wherein the first switch is located in a second side of the base, the second side being opposite to the first side, (Switch 38 is located on top side of Flow Board 12, See Figure 2B).
Claim 37: The base of claim 31, further comprising: a first base connector configured to receive power from the magazine, (Electric Interlock Means 480 with Cover 14 and Flowboard 12, See Figure 26, See column 21, lines 52-61); and a control circuit coupled to the first base connector, (Electrical Circuit 470, See Figure 26, See column 21, lines 52-66), wherein the control circuit is configured to detect transition of the first switch from the first state to the second state and, in response to detection of the transition, cause closing of the first solenoid valve, (See column 21, lines 60-64).
Claim 47: The base of claim 31, wherein the base does not comprise a battery or a battery receptacle, (See column 23, lines 12-15, Kelada; direct power can be selected over a battery), wherein the base is configured to be electrically disconnected from mains, (See column 23, lines 1-7, Kelada).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Monroe et al., (“Monroe”, US 5,445,729).
Regarding Claim 34, Kelada discloses the base of claim 33, but does not disclose wherein the base housing fully encloses the first and second solenoid valves, and the permeate pump.
Monroe discloses wherein the base housing fully encloses the first and second solenoid valves, and the permeate pump, (See column 7, lines 25-31, See column 10, lines 25-37, column 2, lines 67-68, column 3, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating wherein the base housing fully encloses the first and second solenoid valves, and the permeate pump as in Monroe in order to provide “very dense packaging” that “suit its portability and compactness”, (See column 7, lines 46-59, Monroe).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Yang, (US 2018/0257948).
Regarding Claim 35, Kelada discloses the base of claim 32, wherein the base further comprises a pressure sensor, (See column 22, lines 7-9, Kelada), but does not disclose the pressure sensor coupled to a first water tube that is coupled between the second solenoid valve and the third fitting, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to sense a pressure of the water storage tank.
Yang discloses the pressure sensor coupled to a first water tube that is coupled between the second solenoid valve and the third fitting, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to sense a pressure of the water storage tank, (Pressure Sensor is located with Water Storage Device which is connected to Line 107 and to Solenoid Valve 6 and Valve 5, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0073], [0075], Yang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating the pressure sensor coupled to a first water tube that is coupled between the second solenoid valve and the third fitting, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to sense a pressure of the water storage tank as in Yang in order for the “pressure sensor” and “the liquid level sensor” to work together “so that the water filtration system…is more intelligent and efficient, which greatly facilitates the user”, (See paragraph [0075], Yang).
Claim(s) 38 & 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Fahs, II, (“Fahs”, US 2016/0355411), in further view of Ballantine et al., (“Ballantine”, US 2022/0131165).
Regarding Claim 38, Kelada discloses the base of claim 37, causing closing of the first solenoid valve, (See column 18, lines 7-20, Kelada), but does not disclose wherein the control circuit comprises a supercapacitor, the control circuit being configured to detect an interruption of power received from the first base connector, and, in response to detection of the interruption of power, using energy stored in the supercapacitor.
Fahs discloses wherein the control circuit comprises a supercapacitor, (See paragraph [0126], Fahs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating wherein the control circuit comprises a supercapacitor as in Fahs so it “allows for excellent power delivery capabilities…that may require high voltages and/or high pulsed voltages”, (See paragraph [0011], Fahs).
Modified Kelada does not disclose the control circuit being configured to detect an interruption of power received from the first base connector, and, in response to detection of the interruption of power, using energy stored in the supercapacitor.
Ballantine discloses the control circuit being configured to detect an interruption of power received from the first base connector, and, in response to detection of the interruption of power, using energy stored in the supercapacitor, (See paragraph [0085], Ballantine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of modified Kelada by incorporating the control circuit being configured to detect an interruption of power received from the first base connector, and, in response to detection of the interruption of power, using energy stored in the supercapacitor as in Ballantine in order to “provide backup power through energy storage”, (See paragraph [0085], Ballantine).
Regarding Claim 39, Kelada discloses the base of claim 37, the control circuit being configured to cause closing of the first solenoid valve but does not disclose wherein the control circuit comprises a supercapacitor, using energy stored in the supercapacitor when a battery voltage at the first base connector drops below a predetermined threshold.
Fahs discloses wherein the control circuit comprises a supercapacitor, (See paragraph [0126], Fahs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating wherein the control circuit comprises a supercapacitor as in Fahs so it “allows for excellent power delivery capabilities…that may require high voltages and/or high pulsed voltages”, (See paragraph [0011], Fahs).
Modified Kelada does not disclose using energy stored in the supercapacitor when a battery voltage at the first base connector drops below a predetermined threshold.
Ballantine discloses using energy stored in the supercapacitor when a battery voltage at the first base connector drops below a predetermined threshold, (See paragraph [0085], [0074] & [0060], Ballantine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of modified Kelada by incorporating using energy stored in the supercapacitor when a battery voltage at the first base connector drops below a predetermined threshold as in Ballantine in order to “provide backup power through energy storage”, (See paragraph [0085], Ballantine).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Lighton et al., (“Lighton”, US 2021/0208173).
Regarding Claim 40, Kelada discloses the base of claim 37, but does not disclose further comprising a flow switch coupled to a first water tube that is coupled to the second fitting, the flow switch configured to sense a flow of water through the first water tube, wherein the control circuit is configured to transition from a low- power state to an active state based on an output of the flow switch.
Lighton discloses further comprising a flow switch coupled to a first water tube that is coupled to the second fitting, the flow switch configured to sense a flow of water through the first water tube, wherein the control circuit is configured to transition from a low- power state to an active state based on an output of the flow switch, (Flow Cell 110 includes flow switch 116 connected to Manifold 113, See Figures 15, 24A-F, See paragraphs [0184], [0262] & [0433], Lighton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating further comprising a flow switch coupled to a first water tube that is coupled to the second fitting, the flow switch configured to sense a flow of water through the first water tube, wherein the control circuit is configured to transition from a low- power state to an active state based on an output of the flow switch as in Lighton in order to “ensure…fluid remains continuously flowing through the system without any uncontrolled interruptions autonomously” and “allows the [control circuit] to make informed decisions…making it capable of recognizing, troubleshooting, and taking corrective actions if needed”, (See paragraph [0433], Lighton).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Korb et al., (“Korb”, US 2007/0199886).
Regarding Claim 41, Kelada discloses the base of claim 37, with a plurality of electrical connectors configured to be electrically coupled to the first solenoid valve, the first base connector, and to a first sensor of the base, (Contract Strips 356a/b connected to Power supply, See Figure , See column 16, lines 29-52, Kelada), but does not disclose further comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) that comprises the control circuit, wherein the PCB comprises the plurality of electrical connectors facing in a same direction.
Korb discloses further comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) that comprises a control circuit, (See paragraph [0060], [0091], Baldwin), wherein the PCB comprises the plurality of electrical connectors facing in a same direction, (Contacts 490 and Wiring 492 facing in same direction, See Figure 9, See paragraph [0062], Baldwin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating the first base connector, and to a first sensor of the base but does not disclose further comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) that comprises the control circuit, wherein the PCB comprises the plurality of electrical connectors facing in a same direction as in Korb in order to “facilitate connection”, (See paragraph [0062], Korb), and “determines….that the filter assembly…needs to be replaced”, (See paragraph [0063], Korb).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Carlotto, (US 2017/0029294).
Regarding Claim 42, Kelada discloses the base of claim 31, a means coupled to the second fitting via a second water tube, (Fitting 51, Mounting Block 51c, to Spigot 16, See Figures 2B, 3, See column 11, lines 63-67, column 12, lines 1-3), but does not disclose wherein the plurality of detachable base valves further comprises: a base second valve configured to be coupled to a magazine first valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves; a base third valve configured to be coupled to a magazine second valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves, the base third valve coupled to the base second valve via a first water tube; and the means is a base fourth valve configured to be coupled to a magazine third valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves.
Carlotto discloses wherein the plurality of detachable base valves further comprises: a base second valve configured to be coupled to a magazine first valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves, (Valves 33/34, See Figure 2, See paragraph [0071], Carlotto); a base third valve configured to be coupled to a magazine second valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves, the base third valve coupled to the base second valve via a first water tube, (Valves 37/38, See Figure 2, See paragraph [0075], Carlotto); a base fourth valve configured to be coupled to a magazine third valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves, (Means 22, Valve 23, See Figure 2, See paragraphs [0065], [0078], Carlotto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating wherein the plurality of detachable base valves further comprises: a base second valve configured to be coupled to a magazine first valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves; a base third valve configured to be coupled to a magazine second valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves, the base third valve coupled to the base second valve via a first water tube; and the means is a base fourth valve configured to be coupled to a magazine third valve of the plurality of corresponding magazine valves as in Carlotto so it “simplifies periodic maintenance activities”, (See paragraph [0027], Carlotto).
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Hungerford, Jr. et al., (“Hungerford”, US 2,460,011).
Regarding Claim 43, Kelada discloses the base of claim 37, but does not disclose wherein the base input water valve, the base first valve, the base second valve, the base third valve, and the base fourth valve are poppet valves.
Hungerford discloses wherein its base input water valve, base first valve, base second valve, base third valve, and base fourth valve are poppet valves, (See column 1, lines 39-43, lines 50-55, column 2, lines 1-3, Hungerford).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating wherein the base input water valve, the base first valve, the base second valve, the base third valve, and the base fourth valve are poppet valves as in Hungerford in order to “set in the direction of the flow which greatly aids in reducing and minimizing the problems incident to leakage and cross contamination” and “render it more simple to control the degree of opening of the valves as well as to compensate for any wear which may occur, and in general to provide for greater compactness, accessibility, convenience and reduction in manufacturing as well as maintenance costs”, (See column 2, lines 15-21, Hungerford).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Hansson, (US 2016/0220091).
Regarding Claim 44, Kelada discloses the base of claim 37, with a first water tube that is coupled between the first fitting and the base input water valve, (Line 102 connecting via other lines to Line 128 between Inlet Water Port 100, and Needle Valve 195 and Valve 50, See Figure 2B, 3, See column 9, lines 19-21, See column 11, lines 24-43), but does not disclose further comprising a first total dissolved solids (TDS) sensor coupled to the first water tube, wherein the first TDS sensor is configured to sense a quality of water flowing through the first water tube.
Hansson discloses further comprising a first total dissolved solids (TDS) sensor coupled to the first water tube, wherein the first TDS sensor is configured to sense a quality of water flowing through the first water tube, (TDS meter 33 connected on line, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0047], Hansson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating further comprising a first total dissolved solids (TDS) sensor coupled to the first water tube, wherein the first TDS sensor is configured to sense a quality of water flowing through the first water tube as in Hansson because “if the purified water contains contaminants, such as total dissolved solids, exceeding a predetermined threshold, it can be indication that the …filters…needs to be changed”, (See paragraph [0047], Hansson).
Claim(s) 45 & 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelada, (US 6,099,735), in view of Schuster, (US 2015/0251922).
Regarding Claim 45, Kelada discloses the base of claim 44, wherein the base further comprises a control circuit configured to receive sensor data from the first TDS sensor, (TDS meter 33 connected on line between , See Figure 1, See paragraph [0047], Hansson; See column 18, lines 41-57, Kelada), but does not disclose the control circuit comprising a communication interface circuit, wherein the control circuit is configured to transmit information based on the sensor data using the communication interface circuit.
Schuster discloses the control circuit comprising a communication interface circuit, wherein the control circuit is configured to transmit information based on the sensor data using the communication interface circuit, (See paragraph [0021] & [0074], Schuster).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the base of Kelada by incorporating wherein the control circuit is configured to transmit information based on the sensor data using the communication interface circuit as in Schuster to “provide maintenance feedback to the user” and “indications can be provided to replace a filter…based on monitored usage”, (See paragraph [0074], Schuster).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 46: The base of claim 45, wherein the control circuit is configured to transmit the information using the communication interface circuit in a wireless manner, (See paragraph [0021], Schuster).
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
