DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 23 January 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 11-25 and 31-35 are presently pending, with claims 24-25 withdrawn from consideration and claims 11-23 and 31-35 being examined herein.
3. Rejections of claims 18-19 (formerly claim 19) under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the previous Office action are maintained. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
6. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation wherein “when the sensing detects the person while the irradiation device is irradiating with the second wavelength, the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength by the irradiation device” fails to further limit the subject matter required by claim 18, as to stop irradiation with the second wavelength, the second wavelength must already be irradiating from the irradiation device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 11-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1).
9. Regarding claim 11, Wabst discloses a disinfection apparatus (irradiation devices emit UVC light that disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, pars 0109-0111) comprising:
a sensing device configured to sense a presence or an absence of a person in a disinfection area (presence sensor 6 which detects the presence and/or absence of a person in the interior space 2, Abstract, pars 0110-0111, FIG. 1);
an irradiation device (irradiation devices 71 and 72, FIG. 1, pars 0110-0111) capable of irradiating the disinfection area with invisible light of a first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, par 0110) and with invisible light of a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (second irradiation device 72 is also designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space 2, par 0111);
a controller (control unit which controls the existing irradiation devices and which detects signals from the presence sensor, par 0023) that causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the first wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person in the disinfection area (first irradiation device 71 emits UVC radiation when at least one person is present in the interior space 2, par 0110), and causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the second wavelength when the sensing device does not sense the person in the disinfection area (second irradiation device 72 emits UVC radiation when a person is absent from the interior space 2, par 0111); and
a visual indicator that includes a monitor (modular shelter according to the invention has a screen, par 0062).
The limitation that indicates irradiation with the second wavelength is harmful to the person is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Wabst teaches that the monitor is capable of interfacing with a laptop (par 0062), which would be capable of inputting and displaying such a warning. Further, an indication that irradiation is harmful to the person constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material, directed toward conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. See MPEP 2111.05. As such, no functional relationship exists to elevate the message that the second wavelength is harmful above the general display capability of the monitor of Wabst.
10. Regarding claim 12, Wabst teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the visual indicator includes a monitor that is capable of interfacing with a laptop (par 0062). The limitation displays information corresponding to irradiation with the first wavelength and irradiation with the second wavelength is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Further, information about irradiation with these two wavelengths constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material as currently recited, directed toward conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. See MPEP 2111.05. As such, no functional relationship exists to elevate this conveyance of information above the general display capability of the monitor of Wabst.
11. Regarding claim 15, Wabst discloses the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the irradiation device irradiates ultraviolet light with a wavelength of around 222 nm as the first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, par 0110).
12. Regarding claim 16, Wabst discloses the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the irradiation device irradiates a fixture in the disinfection area (disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, par 0111; FIG. 1, e.g. surface 9) by the first wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space, par 0110).
13. Regarding claim 17, Wabst discloses the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the irradiation device irradiates a fixture in the disinfection area (disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, par 0111; FIG. 1, e.g. surface 9) by the second wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space, par 0111).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Deal (US 20090191100 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wabst teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the motion detector sensing device enables the apparatus to irradiate with the second wavelength when no occupants are detected (par 0111) but that a door to the space remains locked while irradiating with the second wavelength (par 0113). Wabst does not teach that when the sensing device detects a person while the irradiation device is irradiating with the second wavelength, the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength by the irradiation device.
Deal teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0017-0020 and 0031-0032, FIGS. 1-3) wherein motion detectors similarly enable the system to irradiate when no occupant is detected (par 0047) using a UV-C wavelength shown to be harmful to humans (pars 0040 and 0047). During the sterilization cycle even while the operator is assumed to be out of the room, the device automatically deactivates itself should the device detect motion (pars 0032 and 0039-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of Wabst to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person in the disinfection area as taught by Deal. Doing so would predictably protect the user from harmful UV-C radiation in all scenarios in which people could be present in the disinfection area as advantageously taught by Deal (pars 0031-0032).
16. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wabst discloses the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the controller sets an irradiation time for irradiating with the second wavelength (timer coupled to the control device which switches off the at least one second irradiation device after a predetermined time interval, pars 0030-0031). Though Wabst teaches that the timer enables the delivery of a dose that would completely destroy bacteria and viruses (par 0091), Wabst does not specifically teach that the controller would set an irradiation time for irradiating with the first wavelength.
However, Wabst does teach that viruses can be completely destroyed by UVC light at a lower dose after a correspondingly long time (par 0091), this teaching of low dose UVC light corresponding to irradiation with the first wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller to set an irradiation time as taught by Wabst for irradiating with the first wavelength as well, as doing so would predictably enable timed dosing of the first wavelength in a way that effects full disinfection similarly to the application of the second wavelength.
17. Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) in view of Deal (US 20090191100 A1).
18. Regarding claim 18, Wabst discloses a disinfection apparatus (irradiation devices emit UVC light that disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, pars 0109-0111) comprising:
a sensing device configured to sense a presence or an absence of a person in a disinfection area (presence sensor 6 which detects the presence and/or absence of a person in the interior space 2, Abstract, pars 0110-0111, FIG. 1);
an irradiation device (irradiation devices 71 and 72, FIG. 1, pars 0110-0111) capable of irradiating the disinfection area with invisible light of a first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, par 0110) and with invisible light of a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (second irradiation device 72 is also designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space 2, par 0111);
and a controller (control unit which controls the existing irradiation devices and which detects signals from the presence sensor, par 0023) that causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the first wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person in the disinfection area (first irradiation device 71 emits UVC radiation when at least one person is present in the interior space 2, par 0110), and causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the second wavelength when the sensing device does not sense the person in the disinfection area (second irradiation device 72 emits UVC radiation when a person is absent from the interior space 2, par 0111).
Wabst teaches that the presence sensing device enables the apparatus to irradiate with the second wavelength when no occupants are detected (par 0111) but that a door to the space remains locked while irradiating with the second wavelength (par 0113). Wabst does not teach that the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person.
Deal teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0017-0020 and 0031-0032, FIGS. 1-3) wherein motion detectors similarly enable the system to irradiate when no occupant is detected (par 0047) using a UV-C wavelength shown to be harmful to humans (pars 0040 and 0047). During the sterilization cycle even while the operator is assumed to be out of the room, the device automatically deactivates itself should the device detect motion (pars 0032 and 0039-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of Wabst to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person as taught by Deal. Doing so would predictably protect the user from harmful UV-C radiation in all scenarios in which people could be present in the disinfection area as advantageously taught by Deal (pars 0031-0032).
19. Regarding claim 19, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein when the sensing device detects a person while the irradiation device is irradiating with the second wavelength, the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength by the irradiation device (if the motion detectors sense motion at any time during the operation of the device, power to the ballasts and the bulbs is immediately disabled, Deal pars 0032 and 0040-0041).
20. Regarding claim 20, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the controller sets an irradiation time for irradiating with the second wavelength (timer coupled to the control device which switches off the at least one second irradiation device after a predetermined time interval, pars 0030-0031). Though Wabst further teaches that the timer enables the delivery of a dose that would completely destroy bacteria and viruses (par 0091), the combination does not specifically teach that the controller would set an irradiation time for irradiating with the first wavelength.
However, Wabst does teach that viruses can be completely destroyed by UVC light at a lower dose after a correspondingly long time (par 0091), this teaching of low dose UVC light corresponding to irradiation with the first wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller to set an irradiation time as taught by Wabst for irradiating with the first wavelength as well, as doing so would predictably enable timed dosing of the first wavelength in a way that effects full disinfection similarly to the application of the second wavelength.
21. Regarding claim 21, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the irradiation device irradiates ultraviolet light with a wavelength of around 222 nm as the first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, Wabst par 0110).
22. Regarding claim 22, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the irradiation device irradiates a fixture in the disinfection area (disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, Wabst par 0111; Wabst FIG. 1, e.g. surface 9) by the first wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space, Wabst par 0110).
23. Regarding claim 23, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the irradiation device irradiates a fixture in the disinfection area (disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, Wabst par 0111; Wabst FIG. 1, e.g. surface 9) by the second wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space, Wabst par 0111).
24. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Deal (US 20090191100 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Wabst teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the motion detector sensing device enables the apparatus to irradiate with the second wavelength when no occupants are detected (par 0111) but that a door to the space remains locked while irradiating with the second wavelength (par 0113). Wabst does not teach wherein the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person.
Deal teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0017-0020 and 0031-0032, FIGS. 1-3) wherein motion detectors similarly enable the system to irradiate when no occupant is detected (par 0047) using a UV-C wavelength shown to be harmful to humans (pars 0040 and 0047). During the sterilization cycle even while the operator is assumed to be out of the room, the device automatically deactivates itself should the device detect motion (pars 0032 and 0039-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of Wabst to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person in the disinfection area as taught by Deal. Doing so would predictably protect the user from harmful UV-C radiation in all scenarios in which people could be present in the disinfection area as advantageously taught by Deal (pars 0031-0032).
25. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246331 A1).
26. Regarding claim 32, Wabst teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, further comprising an imaging device (modular shelter according to the invention has a screen and/or a video conferencing system and/or a camera, par 0062; presence sensor may comprise a camera, par 0021). The limitation that captures a behavior range of the person is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the camera of Wabst, operating continuously in a motion sensing or video conferencing capacity, is capable of capturing such a behavior range of a person in the space being monitored. Wabst teaches wherein the controller controls the irradiation device to perform irradiation with the second wavelength based on presence/absence detection by the presence sensor (par 0111), but Wabst does not teach that this control would occur specifically based on the behavior range.
Lloyd teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0071 and 0123-0124, FIGS. 14-15) that includes sensors configured to track the location of persons in the area to anticipate the movements of persons throughout the area to improve both the safety of persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment (par 0172). The UV emitter moves an ultraviolet beam in areas not occupied by the person to avoid unsafe germicidal radiation exposure (pars 0123-0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of Wabst to control irradiation with the second wavelength based on a tracked behavior range as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefits of improving safety of the persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment.
27. Regarding claim 33, Wabst as modified by Lloyd teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 32, but the combination above does not teach an angle adjuster that adjusts an angle of the irradiation device, wherein the controller controls the angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range.
Lloyd further teaches an ultraviolet LED or laser that is mounted on head that is electromechanically controlled by the controller to rotate about vertical and horizontal axes (par 0097, FIG. 6), to control the direction of the emitter (par 0097) to enable a decontamination sweep of various angles as depicted in FIGS. 14-15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to adjust the angle of the irradiation device via an angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably enable angle control of the emitter to execute a controlled sweep of the area not inhabited by the person, protecting the person from harmful ultraviolet exposure (Lloyd pars 0123-0124).
28. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) and Deal (US 20090191100 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246331 A1).
29. Regarding claim 34, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, further comprising an imaging device (modular shelter according to the invention has a screen and/or a video conferencing system and/or a camera, Wabst par 0062; presence sensor may comprise a camera, Wabst par 0021). The limitation that captures a behavior range of the person is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the camera of Wabst, operating continuously in a motion sensing or video conferencing capacity, is capable of capturing such a behavior range of a person in the space being monitored. Wabst further teaches wherein the controller controls the irradiation device to perform irradiation with the second wavelength based on presence/absence detection by the presence sensor (par 0111), but the combination does not teach that this control would occur specifically based on the behavior range.
Lloyd teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0071 and 0123-0124, FIGS. 14-15) that includes sensors configured to track the location of persons in the area to anticipate the movements of persons throughout the area to improve both the safety of persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment (par 0172). The UV emitter moves an ultraviolet beam in areas not occupied by the person to avoid unsafe germicidal radiation exposure (pars 0123-0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to control irradiation with the second wavelength based on a tracked behavior range as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefits of improving safety of the persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment.
30. Regarding claim 35, Wabst as modified by Deal and Lloyd teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 34, but the combination above does not teach an angle adjuster that adjusts an angle of the irradiation device, wherein the controller controls the angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range.
Lloyd further teaches an ultraviolet LED or laser that is mounted on head that is electromechanically controlled by the controller to rotate about vertical and horizontal axes (par 0097, FIG. 6), to control the direction of the emitter (par 0097) to enable a decontamination sweep of various angles as depicted in FIGS. 14-15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to adjust the angle of the irradiation device via an angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably enable angle control of the emitter to execute a controlled sweep of the area not inhabited by the person, protecting the person from harmful ultraviolet exposure (Lloyd pars 0123-0124).
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 11-17 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, after further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are made over the same references for claims 11-17. In response to Applicant’s argument that Wabst does not make any mention of a monitor that indicates irradiation with the second wavelength is harmful to the person, Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Wabst further teaches a monitor that can interface with a laptop (par 0062) and displaying warning information is considered an intended use per MPEP 2114(II) (and could, in the alternative, be considered non-functional printed matter per MPEP 2111.05). The monitor can readily be configured using the laptop to perform the intended use of displaying warning information.
New grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made for claims 20-23 and 31 in view of Deal, who teaches a controller that stops irradiation with a harmful UVC wavelength when motion is sensed (pars 0040 and 0047). New grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made for claims 32-35 in view of Lloyd, who teaches a UVC disinfection system that uses image analysis to track behavior of persons in the space and adjust the angle of UVC irradiation to avoid exposing these persons to harmful UVC radiation (pars 0097 and 0123-0124).
32. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 18-19 (formerly claim 19) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office action provided no evidence or reasoning as to how or why the addition of Deal cures the deficiencies of Wabst, which Applicant asserts include an inability of the controller to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person, Examiner points to the protocol in Deal par 0040 wherein the UV-C irradiation device automatically deactivates itself should the device detect motion, which Deal teaches as a useful safety feature even in a room that is “secured” from occupants (Deal pars 0032 and 0039-0041). Adding this functionality to the controller of Wabst would predictably, and with a reasonable expectation of success, provide the same useful capability of stopping irradiation with the second wavelength i.e. harmful UV-C wavelength when the presence of a person is detected, so the claim was properly rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
33. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758