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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 06/20/2025.
Claims 1-21 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in in light of the amendments.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The objections to the specification have been reconsidered and the restated objections have not been found persuasive. Any specification objection not listed below has been found persuasive and is withdrawn.This Office Action contains a New Grounds of Rejection. Since this new grounds of rejection did not result from an amendment to the claims, this Office Action is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of claim limitation “sensor elements” in at least claims 1 and 12-14.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of claim limitation “sensor electronics unit” in at least claims 13 and 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A sensor element appears to be described as at least one of an optical sensor, a thermal sensor and a capacitive or conductivity sensor.
A sensor electronics unit appears to be described as at least “the sensor device itself or by the condensate water removal device” in at least paragraph 00050.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 7, 11, 13, 15-16 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.
Regarding claim 7, the term "plastically" appears to be an unbounded range and as such it is unclear what applicant considers how plastically bendable a material needs to be to meet the limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, the term “plastically” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plastically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore, “plastically bendable” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 11, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore, “essentially extends over the full length of the sensor body” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 13 & 16 the recitation of “… wherein the sensor electronics unit is comprised by the sensor itself,” renders the claim unclear. It is unclear how the sensor electronics unit is comprised by the sensor itself.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Thus, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 15, the term “loosely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loosely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore, “the elongate sensor body is adapted to loosely fit into a condensate water container of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”)” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-7, 13, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Parkinson teaches a sensor to detect water [20; 0071 see also 0084], the sensor [20] comprising:
an elongate sensor body [23; 0084] with a proximal end [26; 0084] and a distal end [50; 0084], the elongate sensor body [23] comprising at least one elastically flexible section [fig. 14 see flexible joint]; and
at least two sensor elements [24; 0084] arranged at different longitudinal positions along a length of the elongate sensor body [see fig. 1 for reference where 24 is a indicative of a sensor], wherein the sensor elements [24] are adapted to generate an electric sensor signal [see claim 21] which is indicative of a presence or absence of water at a sensing surface of each one of the sensor elements [see claim 21; see also 0084 where the sensors are used to maintain a desired fluid level and are electrically isolated from one another].
Regarding Claim 2, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teaches wherein the flexible section [fig. 14] is elastically bendable, at least in one direction [0099 where if something is flexible it is elastically bendable].
Regarding Claim 4, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the elongate sensor body [23] comprises:
at least two flexible sections [flexible joint; fig. 14] and at least two rigid sections [area between flexible joints; fig. 14], the flexible sections [flexible joint] and the rigid sections [area between flexible joints] being distributed alternatingly over the length of the elongate sensor body [fig. 14 where the elongate sensor body is made up of 23a-c a and each flexible joint].
Regarding Claim 5, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 4 and Parkinson teaches wherein the rigid [area between flexible joints] sections are formed of bulk material sections [0084 where the pieces are formed by plastic material], and the flexible sections are formed of sections that are reduced in width [fig. 14 where the flexible joints are clearly reduced in width].
Regarding Claim 6, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Gardner teaches wherein the width of the elongate sensor body [1200] is adapted to loosely fit into or through a drain port of a condensate water tray [0084 where the diameter of 30 mm would vary as desired].Regarding Claim 7, Parkinson, as modified teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teaches wherein the flexible section [fig. 14] is bendable [0099 where a flexible joint is bendable].
Regarding Claim 12, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teaches wherein an electric sensor signal [0084; where being electrically isolated is indicative of an electric sensor signal] of the sensor elements [24] is further indicative of at least one of:
a pressure of a fluid in contact with the sensor elements [0029-0030].
Regarding Claim 13, in view of indefiniteness, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 12 and Parkinson teaches wherein the sensor elements [24] are connected to a sensor electronics unit [101; 0089], wherein the sensor electronics unit [101] is adapted to determine whether or not water is present at each one of the sensor elements [fig. 7; 110 and 112-115 corresponding to 24] positions along the length of the elongate sensor body [fig. 7; 0089], based on the electric signal of the sensor elements [0089], and
wherein the sensor electronics unit [101] is comprised by the sensor itself [0019 clearly showing the electronics unit is comprised by the sensor itself].
Regarding Claim 16, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teachings teach all the claim limitations of claim 16 see rejections of claims 1 and 12-13.
Regarding Claim 17, Parkinson teachings teach all the claim limitations of claim 17 see rejections of claims 1, 4-5.
Regarding Claim 19, Parkinson teachings teach all the claim limitations of claim 19 see rejections of claims 1 and 7
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1) in view of Ainger et al. (US2020/0166390A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teaches the flexible section [fig. 14] and the elongate sensor body [23].
Parkinson does not explicitly teach the flexible section covers at least 50 percent of the length of the elongate sensor body.
However, Ainger teaches the flexible section covers [31 corresponding to the flexible joint of Parkinson] at least 50 percent of the length [0101; see also fig. 9b where the flexible structure is continuous] of the elongate sensor body [41 corresponding to 23 of Parkinson].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Parkinson to have the flexible section covers at least 50 percent of the length of the elongate sensor body in view of the teachings of Ainger where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a sensor where the flexible section covers at least 50 percent of the length of the elongate sensor body which would allow for ease of accommodating discontinuities [0098].
Regarding Claim 18, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 17 and Parkinson teaches the rigid sections [area between flexible joints; fig. 14] and the flexible sections [flexible joint; fig. 14]
Parkinson does not explicitly teach the rigid sections and the flexible sections are formed from a same material, wherein the same material is a rubber, or an elastomeric material.
However, Ainger teaches the rigid sections [0105; 31 corresponds to area between flexible joints of Parkinson] and the flexible sections [0105; 42 corresponds to flexible joints of Parkinson] are formed from a same material [0035], wherein the same material is a rubber, or an elastomeric material [0035 where ethylene propylene diene monomer is a rubber an elastomeric material].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Parkinson to have the rigid sections and the flexible sections are formed from a same material, wherein the same material is a rubber, or an elastomeric, in view of the teachings of Ainger where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a sensor where the rigid sections and the flexible sections are formed from a same material which would allow for ease of accommodating discontinuities [0098].
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1) in view of Hope et al. (WO9110116A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teaches the flexible section [fig. 14].
Parkinson does not explicitly teach the flexible section is elastically stretchable.
However, Hope teaches the flexible [pg.11; lines 1-7; 24 corresponding to the flexible joint of Parkinson] section is elastically stretchable [pg.11; lines 1-7 where tensile strength correlates to the given materials ability to elastically stretch].
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Parkinson to have the flexible section is elastically stretchable in view of the teachings of Hope a Simple substitution of the flexible joint for the flexible material polyethylene, steel or other materials of Hope would give the system the necessary elastic stretchability, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded,
i.e. secures a sensor with elastically stretchable material where the material is length stable and achieves accurate vertical measurements [pg. 11; lines 1-7].
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1)as applied to claim 1 above in view of Powell et al. (US2019/0170392A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 1 and Parkinson teaches wherein the proximal end [26] of the elongate sensor body [23]
Parkinson does not explicitly teach the proximal end of the elongate sensor body is connected to a front face of an inlet connector of a condensate water remover.
However, Powell teaches the proximal end [0081; fig. 2A; 60 where it connects to the signal connector corresponding to 26 of Parkinson] of the elongate sensor body [0081; 60 corresponding to 23 of Parkinson] is connected to a front face [3B; fig. 2B] of an inlet connector [48; 0075; fig. 2A] of a condensate water remover [0081; 1].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Parkinson to have the proximal end of the elongate sensor body is connected to a front face of an inlet connector of a condensate water remover in view of the teachings of Powell where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a sensor connected to a front face of an inlet connector of a condensate water remover which an improve water level sensing [0110].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 9 and Parkinson teaches wherein the elongate sensor body [23] is rotatably mounted [fig. 14 where 23 would be mounted and able to rotate] to the front face [Powell; 3B] of the inlet connector [Powell; 48], such that the elongate sensor body [23] is rotatable around a central axis of the elongate sensor body [23; fig. 14 where the sensor body is able to rotate around the central axis of the elongate sensor body].
Claim(s) 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1), Powell et al. (US2019/0170392A1) and in view of Dietz (US2019/0350475A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Parkinson teaches the sensor of claim 9 and Parkinson teaches wherein the elongate sensor body [23], the inlet connector [Powell; 48], the front face [Powell; 3B].
Modified Parkinson does not explicitly teach the elongate sensor body comprises a groove or channel, which essentially extends over the full length of the sensor body, wherein the inlet connector comprises an inlet hole at the front face, and wherein the groove or channel overlaps with the inlet hole at the proximal end of the elongate sensor body.
However, Dietz teaches the elongate sensor body [0032; 3 corresponding to 23 of Parkinson] comprises a groove [0032; 30], which extends over the sensor body [figs. 3&4 where the groove is extending over the sensor body], wherein the inlet connector [2 corresponding to 48 of Powell] comprises an inlet hole [fig. 3; opening 28] at the front face [fig. 5 corresponding to 3B of Powell], and wherein the groove [30] overlaps with the inlet hole [28] at the proximal end of the elongate sensor body [figs. 1&2].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the modified Parkinson teaching with Dietz by combining the elongate sensor body comprises a groove or channel, which essentially extends over the full length of the sensor body, wherein the inlet connector comprises an inlet hole at the front face, and wherein the groove or channel overlaps with the inlet hole at the proximal end of the elongate sensor body where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a sensor where the elongate sensor body comprises a groove, which extends over the sensor body, the inlet connector comprises an inlet hole at the front face, and the groove or channel overlaps with the inlet hole at the proximal end of the elongate sensor body where this would improve the sensors alignment and ease of installation.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Parkinson teachings teach all the limitations of claim 20, see rejections of claims 1, 9 and 11
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1) in view of Oakner et al. (US2006/0208915A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Parkinson teaches a method [0089] for commissioning a sensor according to claim 1 and Parkinson teaches the method [0089] comprising:
the elongate sensor body [23];
detecting an event of a first sensor element [fig. 7; 110] of the sensor elements [24] being a first one to detect a presence of water [fig. 7 where 110 would be the first sensor to detect a presence of water as the container is being filled];
assigning a stop-function to that sensor element [0089; fig. 7];
detecting an event of a second sensor element [0089; 115] of the sensor elements [24] being the last one to detect a presence of water [0089]; and
assigning an alarm-function [0089; 116] to that sensor element [115].
Parkinson does not explicitly teach introducing the elongate sensor body into a condensate water container of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”); and adding by a water source of the HVACR system an increasing amount of water into the condensate water tray.
However, Oakner teaches introducing the elongate sensor body [0042; 80 corresponding to 23 of Parkinson] into a condensate water container [0036; 140] of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”) [0036; 100]; and
adding by a water source of the HVACR system an increasing amount of water into the [0032-0033 where condensate is a water sourced from the HVACR system] condensate water tray [140].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Parkinson to have introducing the elongate sensor body into a condensate water container of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”); and adding by a water source of the HVACR system an increasing amount of water into the condensate water tray in view of the teachings of Oakner where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a sensor having an elongate sensor body into a condensate water container of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”); and adding by a water source of the HVACR system an increasing amount of water into the condensate water tray which would prevent costly water damage [0006].
Claim(s) 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US2019/0170392A1) in view of Oakner et al. (US2006/0208915A1) and further in view of Parkinson (US2010/0162812A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Powell teaches a condensate water remover [1; 0072] for a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”) [0082; 100] and Powell teaches the condensate water remover [1] comprising:
an inlet connector [12; at least fig. 1] with an inlet hole [at least the dotted line on fig. 2A] at a front face [3B; fig. 2B] of the inlet connector [12]; an outlet connector [13; at least fig. 1] with an outlet hole [at least the dotted line on fig. 2A] at a front face [3A; fig. 2B] of the outlet connector [13]; and
a pump [47; which encompasses pump 22], wherein the inlet connector [12] is attached to a first housing [2; fig. 1],
wherein the outlet connector [13] is attached to the first housing [2] or a second housing [8; fig. 1], wherein the pump [47] is arranged within the first [2] or second housing [8; fig. 3A],
wherein the inlet hole is connected to an inlet of the pump by a fluid line and an outlet of the pump is connected to the outlet hole by another fluid line [0092], and wherein the proximal end of the sensor is connected to the front face of the inlet connector [48; 0075; fig. 2A].
Powell does not explicitly teach a sensor according to claim 1 or wherein a width of the elongate sensor body is adapted to fit into a condensate water container of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”).
However, Parkinson teaches a sensor according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Powell to have a sensor according to claim 1 in view of the teachings of Parkinson where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a condensate water remover with a sensor according to claim 1 which provides reliable sensing at each sensor level [0007].
Further, Oakner teaches wherein a width of the elongate sensor body [80 corresponding to 23 of Parkinson and clearly has a width] is adapted to fit [where in figures 9 A&B the sensor fits into the drain pan] into a condensate water container [0036; 140] of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”) [0036; 100].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Powell teaching with Oakner by combining wherein a width of the elongate sensor body is adapted to loosely fit into a condensate water container of a heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration system (“HVACR system”) where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a condensate water remover wherein a width of the elongate sensor body is adapted to fit into a condensate water container of an HVACR system which would prevent costly water damage [0006].
Regarding Claim 21, Powell teaches a heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration system (‘HVACR system’) with a condensate water remover according to claim 15 and Powell teaches wherein the inlet connector [12] of the condensate water remover [1] is sealingly plugged into a condensate water hose [19] through which condensate water from a source of water of the HVACR system is led to the condensate water remover [0076], and the inlet connector [12] of the condensate water remover [1] is sealingly connected to a drain port [Oakner; 130] of a drip tray [Oakner; 140] of the HVACR system [Oakner 0036], and the sensor protrudes into the drip tray [fig. 10 showing the sensor protruding into the drip tray].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 08:30AM-06:30PM (Eastern).
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763