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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merit for claims 1 – 20.
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: “the backflow preventor” in claim 6. The discussion in the specification regarding the backflow preventor includes a one-way valve that corresponds to the claimed function.
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.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 7, 13 – 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting et al. (U. S. Patent Application No. 2019/0335968 A1) in view of Haijun (CN110448243 A) .
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Harting teaches a cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising: a docking station (docking station, 100) including: a station suction inlet (Paragraph [0023]; Fig. 1) configured to be fluidly coupled to a vacuum cleaner (robotic vacuum cleaner, 102); a station dust cup (filet system, 115) configured to be removably fluidly coupled to the docking station (100; Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]), the station dust cup (115) including a debris cavity (filter medium, 106); and a station suction motor (suction motor, 104) configured to cause air to flow into the station suction inlet and through the station dust cup (Paragraph [0023]).
Harting does not explicitly teach an odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity.
Haijun, however, teaches a dust box assembly (10), an automatic moving cleaning device (Paragraph [0002]) and a station dust cup (dust box, 11); wherein an odor control assembly (odor diffusion component, 16) fluidly coupled to the station dust cup (11; Paragraph [0043]); wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include an odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 2, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the odor control assembly configured to receive ambient air, to transfer fragrance particles into the ambient air to form fragranced air, and to allow the fragranced air to flow into the debris cavity.
Haijun, however, teaches the odor control assembly (16) configured to receive ambient air (Paragraph [0043]), to transfer fragrance particles into the ambient air to form fragranced air (Paragraph [0043]), and to allow the fragranced air to flow into the debris cavity (Paragraph [0043] - Haijun further teaches the fragrance diffusing together with the airflow which is all housed in the body of the vacuum. As shown in Figure 6, there are no barriers preventing the fragrance from dissipating in the robot body and the dust box, 11 as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gaseous molecules travel in many different directions. Further, Haijun explicitly teaches The odor dissipation component 16 further enhances the functionality of the dust box component 10 and effectively improves air quality (Paragraph [0044] – thus Haijun teaches “to allow the fragranced air to flow into the debris cavity” ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include the odor control assembly configured to receive ambient air, to transfer fragrance particles into the ambient air to form fragranced air, and to allow the fragranced air to flow into the debris cavity, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 3, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the odor control assembly comprises: a scent puck; and a dial body configured to be removably secured to the station dust cup and configured to receive a scent puck, wherein the dial body at least partially defines a fragrance cavity configured to receive and generally enclose the scent puck.
Haijun, however, teaches the odor control assembly (16) comprises: a scent puck (Paragraph [0044] – solid fragrance); and a dial body (Paragraph [0044] – aromatherapy box) configured to be removably secured to the station dust cup (11) and configured to receive a scent puck (Paragraph [0044]), wherein the dial body at least partially defines a fragrance cavity configured to receive and generally enclose the scent puck (Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a scent puck; and a dial body configured to be removably secured to the station dust cup and configured to receive a scent puck, wherein the dial body at least partially defines a fragrance cavity configured to receive and generally enclose the scent puck, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 4, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 3, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the cleaning system wherein the odor control assembly further comprises: one or more fragrance passageways, the one or more fragrance passageways configured to allow air to flow past the scent puck to transfer fragrance particles into the air to form fragranced air.
Haijun, however, teaches the cleaning system wherein the odor control assembly (16) further comprises: one or more fragrance passageways (Paragraph [0043]), the one or more fragrance passageways configured to allow air to flow past the scent puck to transfer fragrance particles into the air to form fragranced air (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include wherein the odor control assembly further comprises: one or more fragrance passageways, the one or more fragrance passageways configured to allow air to flow past the scent puck to transfer fragrance particles into the air to form fragranced air, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 5, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 4, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the cleaning system wherein the docking station further comprises: a bleed hole disposed in an outer surface of the docking station, and configured to allow external air to be drawn into the docking station; and an inlet air path to fluidly couple the bleed hole with the one or more fragrance passageways.
Haijun, however, teaches the cleaning system wherein the docking station (10) further comprises: a bleed hole (passage cavity, 114) disposed in an outer surface of the docking station (10; Fig. 1), and configured to allow external air to be drawn into the docking station (Fig. 1); and an inlet air path (inlet duct, 1131) to fluidly couple the bleed hole with the one or more fragrance passageways (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a bleed hole disposed in an outer surface of the docking station, and configured to allow external air to be drawn into the docking station; and an inlet air path to fluidly couple the bleed hole with the one or more fragrance passageways, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 6, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 5, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the cleaning system wherein the inlet air path further comprises a backflow preventor, wherein the backflow preventor is configured to seal off the odor control assembly from atmospheric air to substantially prevent air from escaping from the inlet air path.
Haijun, however, teaches the cleaning system wherein the inlet air path (1131) further comprises a backflow preventor (valve; Paragraph [0045]), wherein the backflow preventor is configured to seal off the odor control assembly from atmospheric air to substantially prevent air from escaping from the inlet air path (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a bleed hole disposed in an outer surface of the docking station, and configured to allow external air to be drawn into the docking station; and an inlet air path to fluidly couple the bleed hole with the one or more fragrance passageways, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 7, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 6, as discussed above.
Harting, as modified by Haijun teaches a valve wherein an opening direction of the valve is controlled but does not explicitly teach the backflow preventor includes a one-way valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a one-way valve, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 13, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach an odor control cavity at least partially disposed in a top surface of the station dust cup, the odor control cavity configured to at least partially receive the odor control assembly.
Haijun, however, teaches an odor control cavity (cavity formed in box, 11 to accommodate component, 16) at least partially disposed in a top surface of the station dust cup (11), the odor control cavity configured to at least partially receive the odor control assembly (Paragraphs [0043] and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include an odor control cavity at least partially disposed in a top surface of the station dust cup, the odor control cavity configured to at least partially receive the odor control assembly, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Independent Claim 14, Harting teaches a cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising: a vacuum cleaner (robotic vacuum cleaner, 102); a docking station (docking station, 100), the vacuum cleaner (102) configured to dock with the docking station (100; Paragraph [0008]), the docking station (100) including: a station suction inlet (Paragraph [0023]; Fig. 1) configured to be fluidly coupled to a vacuum cleaner (robotic vacuum cleaner, 102); a station dust cup (filet system, 115) configured to be removably fluidly coupled to the docking station (100; Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]), the station dust cup (115) including a debris cavity (filter medium, 106); and a station suction motor (suction motor, 104) configured to cause air to flow into the station suction inlet and through the station dust cup (Paragraph [0023]).
Harting does not explicitly teach an odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity.
Haijun, however, teaches a dust box assembly (10), an automatic moving cleaning device (Paragraph [0002]) and a station dust cup (dust box, 11); wherein an odor control assembly (odor diffusion component, 16) fluidly coupled to the station dust cup (11; Paragraph [0043]); wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include an odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 15, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system (Fig. 1) wherein the docking station (100) further comprises a base (Annotated Fig. 1), wherein the station dust cup (115) is configured to be removably secured to the base (Annotated Fig. 1), the base including the station suction motor (104; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the odor control assembly comprises: a scent puck; and a dial body configured to be removably secured to the station dust cup and configured to receive a scent puck, wherein the dial body at least partially defines a fragrance cavity configured to receive and generally enclose the scent puck.
Haijun, however, teaches the odor control assembly (16) comprises: a scent puck (Paragraph [0044] – solid fragrance); and a dial body (Paragraph [0044] – aromatherapy box) configured to be removably secured to the station dust cup (11) and configured to receive a scent puck (Paragraph [0044]), wherein the dial body at least partially defines a fragrance cavity configured to receive and generally enclose the scent puck (Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a scent puck; and a dial body configured to be removably secured to the station dust cup and configured to receive a scent puck, wherein the dial body at least partially defines a fragrance cavity configured to receive and generally enclose the scent puck, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 17, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 3, as discussed above.
Harting does not teach the cleaning system wherein the odor control assembly further comprises: one or more fragrance passageways, the one or more fragrance passageways configured to allow air to flow past the scent puck to transfer fragrance particles into the air to form fragranced air.
Haijun, however, teaches the cleaning system wherein the odor control assembly (16) further comprises: one or more fragrance passageways (Paragraph [0043]), the one or more fragrance passageways configured to allow air to flow past the scent puck to transfer fragrance particles into the air to form fragranced air that flows into the debris cavity (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include wherein the odor control assembly further comprises: one or more fragrance passageways, the one or more fragrance passageways configured to allow air to flow past the scent puck to transfer fragrance particles into the air to form fragranced air, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Regarding Claim 19, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system (Fig. 1) wherein the vacuum cleaner is a robotic vacuum cleaner (102; Fig 1).
Regarding Independent Claim 20, Harting teaches a cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising: a vacuum cleaner (robotic vacuum cleaner, 102); the vacuum cleaner (102) configured to dock with the docking station (docking station, 100), the docking station (100) including: a station suction inlet (Paragraph [0023]; Fig. 1) configured to be fluidly coupled to a vacuum cleaner (robotic vacuum cleaner, 102); a station dust cup (filet system, 115) configured to be removably fluidly coupled to the docking station (100; Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]), the station dust cup (115) including a debris cavity (filter medium, 106); and a station suction motor (suction motor, 104) configured to cause air to flow into the station suction inlet and through the station dust cup (Paragraph [0023]).
Harting does not explicitly teach a first odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the vacuum cleaner; a second odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the second odor control assembly and into the debris cavity.
Haijun, however, teaches a first odor control assembly (exhaust portion, 24; Paragraph [0051]; Fig. 8) fluidly coupled to the vacuum cleaner (20); a second odor control assembly (odor diffusion component, 16) fluidly coupled to the station dust cup (11; Paragraph [0043]); wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the second odor control assembly (16) and into the debris cavity through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a first odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the vacuum cleaner; a second odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the second odor control assembly and into the debris cavity, as taught by Haijun, to provide a device that is capable of dissipating odor in the system, thus providing a pleasant cleaning experience free of foul smells.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting et al. (U. S. Patent Application No. 2019/0335968 A1) in view of Haijun (CN110448243 A) and Buchholtz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0109464 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Harting, as modified, teaches the cleaning system of claim 14 as discussed above.
Harting, does not teach the vacuum cleaner is a handheld vacuum cleaner.
Buchholtz, however, teaches the vacuum cleaner is a handheld vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0056] - In accordance with an alternative exemplary embodiment, robot vacuum cleaner 115 is configured as another home robot or as a battery-powered vacuum cleaner or as a handstick or as a handheld).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harting to further include a first odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the vacuum cleaner; a second odor control assembly fluidly coupled to the station dust cup; wherein the station suction motor is configured to generate an airflow through the second odor control assembly and into the debris cavity, as taught by Haijun, since these two cleaners are art-recognized
equivalents, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a robotic cleaner for a hand-held cleaner (MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although Harting, as modified by Haijun teaches a cleaning system, the references, alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest or make obvious wherein the dial body includes: a puck cap; and a puck cartridge removably coupled to the puck cap at least partially forming the fragrance cavity and the one or more fragrance passageways, the puck cap including an entrance and an exit to the one or more fragrance passageways, wherein atmospheric air flows through the entrance, across the scent puck, and out of the exit.
Claims 9 – 12 are further objected to as being dependents of objected claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated January 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112( a) and (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated January 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the analysis is maintained. The back flow preventer is clearly the valve as discussed in the specification. Back flow preventor is the place holder.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated January 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Haijun does not teach or suggest a “station suction motor that is configured to generate airflow through the odor control assembly and into the debris cavity”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Haijun teaches the dust box, 11, disposed in the vacuum body - see Figure 6 below. Haijun further teaches the fragrance diffusing together with the airflow which is all housed in the body of the vacuum. As shown in Figure 6, there are no barriers preventing the fragrance from dissipating in the robot body and the dust box, 11 as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gaseous molecules travel in many different directions. Further, Haijun explicitly teaches The odor dissipation component 16 further enhances the functionality of the dust box component 10 and effectively improves air quality (Paragraph [0044]).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome the art, Examiner suggests amending claims to include the upstream configuration of the odor control assembly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723