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 Status
Claims 21-22, 24-33, 35-40, and 42-43 are pending. Claims 21-22, 24-26, 33, and 35 have been amended. Claims are new 42-43. Claims 1-20, 23, 34, and 41 are canceled. By virtue of dependency all claims are amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-22, 24-33, 35-40, and 42-43 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.
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.
Claims 21, 24-25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1.”
Regarding Claim 21: Davis teaches a beverage cooler (title, 20), comprising:
a housing (20) comprising a door (21, 11) comprising transparent material (Column , lines ), wherein the housing (20) defines an interior space (see Figure 2), wherein the housing is configured to store a beverage container (abstract) and the door (21, 22) is configured to seal (Column 2, lines 40-47) the interior space (functional limitation); a cooling system (20 is a refrigerated cabinet, Column 2, lines 38-47) configured to cool the beverage container within the housing (Column 1, lines 56-63).
Davis fails to teach a tray arranged entirely within the interior space of the housing, wherein the tray defines an opening configured to receive the beverage container; a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the beverage container received by the opening; an visual indicator arranged within the interior space of the housing and disposed along a perimeter of the opening; and a controller in communication with the temperature sensor and the visual indicator, wherein the controller is configured to operate the visual indicator, based on the temperature of the beverage container as measured by the temperature sensor, such that the visual indicator displays information related to the measured temperature of the beverage container.
KR 9993 Y1 teaches a tray (120) arranged entirely within an interior space of a housing (110), wherein the tray (120) defines an opening (120 are sleeves) configured to receive a beverage container (see Figure 2); a temperature sensor (page 4 of machine translation, sensor placed in 120 not shown) configured to measure a temperature of the beverage container (page 4 of machine translation) received by the opening (page 4 of the machine translation); an visual indicator (140) arranged within the interior space (see Figure 2, 140 is flush with top surface of 110) of the housing (110) and disposed along a perimeter of the opening (opening of 120 see Figure 2); and a controller (170) in communication with the temperature sensor (page 4 of machine translation) and the visual indicator (140), wherein the controller (170) is configured to operate the visual indicator (pages 3-4 of machine translation), based on the temperature of the beverage container (pages 3-4 of machine translation) as measured by the temperature sensor (pages 3-4 of machine translation), such that the visual indicator (140) displays information related to the measured temperature of the beverage container (top of page 4 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a tray arranged entirely within the interior space of the housing, wherein the tray defines an opening configured to receive the beverage container; a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the beverage container received by the opening; an visual indicator arranged within the interior space of the housing and disposed along a perimeter of the opening; and a controller in communication with the temperature sensor and the visual indicator, wherein the controller is configured to operate the visual indicator, based on the temperature of the beverage container as measured by the temperature sensor, such that the visual indicator displays information related to the measured temperature of the beverage container to the structure of Davis as taught by KR 993 Y1 in order to advantageously provide the user the information that a bottle has reached the desired temperature (see KR 993 Y1, abstract, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 24: Davis modified supra further teaches wherein the controller (170 of KR 993 Y1) is configured to cause the visual indicator (140 of KR 993 Y1) to provide an indication when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (sensor in 120 of KR 993 Y1) is at a predetermined temperature (page 4, machine translation of KR 993 Y1).
Regarding Claim 25: Davis modified supra further teaches wherein the visual indicator (140 of KR 993 Y1) is visible without opening the door (through 22 of Davis).
Regarding Claim 31: Davis modified supra teaches further comprising operating the cooling system (160 of KR 993 Y1) based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (sensor in 120 of KR 993 Y1 page 4, machine translation of KR 993 Y1).
Claims 33 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” and Lauchnor (US 2012/0198871 A1).
Regarding Claim 33: Davis teaches a method of cooling a beverage by a beverage cooler (title, 20), the method comprising: an interior space (see Figure 2) of a housing of the beverage cooler (20 is a refrigerated cabinet, Column 2, lines 38-47), and the interior space is sealed by a door (21, 22); cooling the beverage container by a cooling system of the beverage cooler (Column 1, lines 56-63).
Davis fails to teach arranging a beverage container within an opening defined by a tray, and on a shelf disposed beneath the tray, wherein the tray is arranged within the interior space of the housing of the beverage cooler, the shelf is adjustable to accommodate various beverage container heights, measuring a temperature of the beverage container by a temperature sensor; and providing a visual indication, comprising information related to the measured temperature of the beverage container, by a visual indicator of the beverage cooler viewable through the door and disposed along a perimeter of the opening, based on the measured temperature of the beverage container, wherein the visual indicator comprises one or more lights, and wherein the visual indicator is in communication with the temperature sensor and a controller of the beverage cooler.
KR 993 Y1 teaches arranging a beverage container (see bottles in Figure 2) within an opening (opening of 120) defined by a tray (120), wherein the tray (120) is arranged within an interior space (see Figure 2) of a housing (cabinet of 110) of a beverage cooler (100), measuring a temperature of the beverage container (bottles) by a temperature sensor (page 4 of machine translation, sensor placed in 120 not shown); and providing a visual indication (via 140), comprising information related to the measured temperature of the beverage container (pages 3-4 of machine translation), by a visual indicator (140) of the beverage cooler (100) disposed along a perimeter of the opening (see Figure 2, 140 is flush with top surface of 110), based on the measured temperature of the beverage container (page 4 of the machine translation), wherein the visual indicator (140) comprises one or more lights (bottom of page 4 of the machine translation), and wherein the visual indicator (140) is in communication with the temperature sensor (page 4 of the machine translation) and a controller (170) of the beverage cooler (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided arranging a beverage container within an opening defined by a tray, wherein the tray is arranged within the interior space of the housing of the beverage cooler, measuring a temperature of the beverage container by a temperature sensor; and providing a visual indication, comprising information related to the measured temperature of the beverage container, by a visual indicator of the beverage cooler disposed along a perimeter of the opening, based on the measured temperature of the beverage container, wherein the visual indicator comprises one or more lights, and wherein the visual indicator is in communication with the temperature sensor and a controller of the beverage cooler to the structure of Davis as taught by KR 993 Y1 in order to advantageously provide the user the information that a bottle has reached the desired temperature (see KR 993 Y1, abstract, machine translation).
Lauchnor teaches a shelf (94) disposed beneath a tray (66), the shelf (94) is adjustable to accommodate various beverage container heights (various 200, see Figure 12, paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a shelf disposed beneath a tray, the shelf is adjustable to accommodate various beverage container heights to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Lauchnor in order to advantageously provide the ability to adjust the holding of items in the housing (see Lauchnor, paragraph [0035]).
When in combination, a visual indicator (140 of KR 993 Y1) of the beverage cooler (110 of KR 993 Y1) is viewable through the door (21, 22 of Davis).
Regarding Claim 39: Davis modified supra teaches further comprising operating the cooling system (160 of KR 993 Y1) based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (sensor in 120 of KR 993 Y1, page 4, machine translation of KR 993 Y1).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Watzke et al. (US 2017/0045289 A1) hereafter referred to as “Watzke.”
Regarding Claim 22: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the visual indicator is arranged on the tray.
Watzke teaches wherein an indicator (28) is arranged on a tray (14, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the visual indicator is arranged on the tray to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Watzke in order to advantageously provide visual indication of the settings/bottle at the placement or removal of the bottle (see Watzke, paragraph [0012]).
Claims 26-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Sams et al. (DE 10061239 A1, machine translation) hereafter referred to as “Sams.”
Regarding Claim 26: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the visual indicator is configured to provide a first illumination when the temperature is at or below a predetermined temperature, and wherein the visual indicator is configured to provide a second illumination when the temperature is above the predetermined temperature, wherein the first illumination is different than the second illumination.
Sams teaches a visual indicator (LED lights 6) is configured to provide a first illumination when a temperature is at or below a predetermined temperature, and wherein the visual indicator is configured to provide a second illumination when the temperature is above the predetermined temperature, wherein the first illumination is different than the second illumination (page 3 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the visual indicator is configured to provide a first illumination when the temperature is at or below a predetermined temperature, and wherein the visual indicator is configured to provide a second illumination when the temperature is above the predetermined temperature, wherein the first illumination is different than the second illumination to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Sams in order to advantageously provide color coded indications for the temperature ranges of the measured product (Sams, page 3 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 27: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the first illumination comprises a first color and wherein the second illumination comprises a second color.
Sams teaches a first illumination comprises a first color and a second illumination comprises a second color (page 3 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first illumination comprises a first color and wherein the second illumination comprises a second color to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Sams in order to advantageously provide color coded indications for the temperature ranges of the measured product (Sams, page 3 of the machine translation).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” and Sams et al. (DE 10061239 A1, machine translation) hereafter referred to as “Sams,” as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Watzke et al. (US 2017/0045289 A1) hereafter referred to as “Watzke.”
Regarding Claim 28: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the first illumination comprises a first intensity and wherein the second illumination comprises a second intensity.
Watzke teaches a first illumination comprises a first intensity and wherein a second illumination comprises a second intensity (paragraph [0012], Watzke).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first illumination comprises a first intensity and wherein the second illumination comprises a second intensity to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Watzke in order to advantageously provide visual indication of the settings/bottle at the placement or removal of the bottle (see Watzke, paragraph [0012]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Leyendecker (US 2004/0140304 A1).
Regarding Claim 29: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising a beverage container sensor configured to detect a presence of the beverage container within the opening.
Leyendecker teaches a beverage container sensor configured to detect a presence of a beverage container within an opening (paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a beverage container sensor configured to detect a presence of the beverage container within the opening to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Leyendecker in order to advantageously provide automatic start/stops of the system once the bottle is inserted/removed (see Leyendecker, paragraph [0092]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0339822 A1), hereafter referred to as “Park.”
Regarding Claim 30: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising operating the cooling system via a mobile electronic device in wireless communication with the beverage cooler.
Park teaches operating a cooling system via a mobile electronic device in wireless communication with a beverage cooler (paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a beverage container sensor configured to detect a presence of the beverage container within the opening to the structure of Stiles modified supra as taught by Park in order to advantageously provide remote control of the system by a user (see Park, paragraphs [0037] and [0059]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Bohner (4,681,611).
Regarding Claim 32: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising: operating the cooling system in a first mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature, and operating the cooling system in a second mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is at or below the predetermined temperature.
Bohner teaches operating a cooling system in a first mode when a temperature measured by a temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature (see operation Flowchart in Figure 3, steps 68 to 70), and operating the cooling system in a second mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is at or below the predetermined temperature (see operation Flowchart in Figure 3, steps 72-74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided operating the cooling system in a first mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature, and operating the cooling system in a second mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is at or below the predetermined temperature to the structure of Davis modified supra a as taught by Bohner in order to advantageously control the beverage to a desired setpoint by monitoring the temperature status (see Bohner, Column 3, lines 57-68).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” and Lauchnor (US 2012/0198871 A1), as applied to claims 33 above, and further in view of Sams et al. (DE 10061239 A1, machine translation) hereafter referred to as “Sams.”
Regarding Claim 35: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising providing a first illumination by the visual indicator when the temperature is at or below a predetermined temperature, and providing a second illumination by the visual indicator when the temperature is above the predetermined temperature, wherein the first illumination is different than the second illumination.
Sams teaches providing a first illumination by a visual indicator (LED lights 6) when a temperature is at or below a predetermined temperature, and providing a second illumination by the visual indicator when the temperature is above the predetermined temperature, wherein the first illumination is different than the second illumination (page 3 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first illumination by the visual indicator when the temperature is at or below a predetermined temperature, and providing a second illumination by the visual indicator when the temperature is above the predetermined temperature, wherein the first illumination is different than the second illumination to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Sams in order to advantageously provide color coded indications for the temperature ranges of the measured product (Sams, page 3 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 36: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the first illumination comprises a first color and wherein the second illumination comprises a second color.
Sams teaches a first illumination comprises a first color and a second illumination comprises a second color (page 3 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first illumination comprises a first color and wherein the second illumination comprises a second color to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Sams in order to advantageously provide color coded indications for the temperature ranges of the measured product (Sams, page 3 of the machine translation).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” Lauchnor (US 2012/0198871 A1), and Sams et al. (DE 10061239 A1, machine translation) hereafter referred to as “Sams,” as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Watzke et al. (US 2017/0045289 A1) hereafter referred to as “Watzke.”
Regarding Claim 37: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the first illumination comprises a first intensity and wherein the second illumination comprises a second intensity.
Watzke teaches a first illumination comprises a first intensity and wherein a second illumination comprises a second intensity (paragraph [0012], Watzke).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first illumination comprises a first intensity and wherein the second illumination comprises a second intensity to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Watzke in order to advantageously provide visual indication of the settings/bottle at the placement or removal of the bottle (see Watzke, paragraph [0012]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” and Lauchnor (US 2012/0198871 A1), as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0339822 A1), hereafter referred to as “Park.”
Regarding Claim 38: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising controlling operation of the cooling system by a mobile electronic device in wireless communication with the beverage cooler.
Park controlling operation of a cooling system by a mobile electronic device in wireless communication with a beverage cooler (paragraphs [0037] and [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided controlling operation of the cooling system by a mobile electronic device in wireless communication with the beverage cooler to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Park in order to advantageously provide remote control of the system by a user (see Park, paragraphs [0037] and [0059]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” and Lauchnor (US 2012/0198871 A1), as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Bohner (4,681,611).
Regarding Claim 40: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising: operating the cooling system in a first mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature, and operating the cooling system in a second mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is at or below the predetermined temperature.
Bohner teaches operating a cooling system in a first mode when a temperature measured by a temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature (see operation Flowchart in Figure 3, steps 68 to 70), and operating the cooling system in a second mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is at or below the predetermined temperature (see operation Flowchart in Figure 3, steps 72-74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided operating the cooling system in a first mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature, and operating the cooling system in a second mode when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is at or below the predetermined temperature to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Bohner in order to advantageously control the beverage to a desired setpoint by monitoring the temperature status (see Bohner, Column 3, lines 57-68).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Beers (1,652,600).
Regarding Claim 42: Davis modified supra fails to teach further comprising a seal disposed within the opening and configured to fill a space between the opening and the beverage container received by the opening.
Beers teaches a seal (16) disposed within an opening (12) and configured to fill a space between the opening (12) and a beverage container (N of B) received by the opening (B, page 2, Column 2, lines 89-93
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a seal disposed within the opening and configured to fill a space between the opening and the beverage container received by the opening to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Beers in order to advantageously provide a seal to prevent air from entering (see Beers, page 2, Column 2, lines 89-93).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (4,449,761), hereafter referred to as “Davis,” in view of (KR 200440993 Y1), machine translation, hereafter referred to as “KR 993 Y1,” and Lauchnor (US 2012/0198871 A1), as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Beers (1,652,600).
Regarding Claim 43: Davis modified supra fails to teach wherein the beverage cooler further comprises a seal disposed within the opening and configured to fill a space between the opening and the beverage container.
Beers teaches a beverage cooler (title) further comprises a seal (tabs 16) disposed within an opening (120 and configured to fill a space between the opening (12) and a beverage container (N of B, page 2, Column 2, lines 89-93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the beverage cooler further comprises a seal disposed within the opening and configured to fill a space between the opening and the beverage container to the structure of Davis modified supra as taught by Beers in order to advantageously provide a seal to prevent air from entering (see Beers, page 2, Column 2, lines 89-93).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Walker et al. (US 7,347,364 B2).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights