DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The claims are no longer considered to invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Cerdan nor Engelhart discloses containment traps. Applicant argues that the baffles of Cerdan are not suitable for filtering within the scheme of Cerdan. This is not persuasive since the entirety of the disclosure of Cerdan is directed at filtering (see at least paragraph [0029]. Regarding the fabrics/etchings of Engelhart failing to teach or disclose trapping the sludges with which the scheme of Cerdan is concerned, and Applicant’s assertion that a conclusion to such effect is indicative of an improper hindsight reasoning, Examiner reminds Applicant it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that increasing the surface area off the baffle walls of Cerdan would improve the filtering ability of the device of Cerdan through increased surface area on the baffle walls.
Applicant argues that the office has provided no evidence of rationale that those benefits of Engelhart’s fabric might be transferrable or realizeable by Cerdan. Examiner reminds Applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant appears to admit that adding the fabric and/or etching of Engelhart to Cerdan would create “an even distribution of flow”, which would suggest that Applicant understands that the combination of Engelhart and Cerdan would increase the surface area of the baffles of Cerdan and create more even flow, thus suggesting that the combination would suggest more even flow and increased surface area with a reasonable suggesting of success.
Applicant argues that the office’s proposed modifications run contrary to the explicit purposes of Cerdan and are therefore non-obvious. Applicant argues that even if the combination with Engelhart would provide a filtering effect/containment traps, that such would cause the sludge to accumulate on the plates rather than in the tank and force user maintenance that Cerdan seeks to avoid and render Cerdan unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cerdan is directed not only a replacing the traditional air filter that must be replaced every one to six months (see at least Cerdan paragraph [0002]), but also at providing improved filter efficiency (see at least Cerdan paragraph [0029]). (Examiner notes that Applicant’s calling out of paragraph [0003], when read in the context of the Application, which is directed at a “System and Method for Filtering […]”, means that Cerdan is not directed at a system with no filter at all, but rather no inlet air filter per paragraph [0002].) Thus, even if the sludge were to accumulate on the plates, it would improve efficiency of the filter of Cerdan, even if making the filter system have a finite lifespan. For example, trapping additional contaminants on the baffle plates could prevent fouling of the pump inlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of the increased surface area of the baffle plates with the possibility of reduced lifespan or increased maintenance. Examiner also notes that if scaled appropriately, baffle plates that collect sludge could be sized to outlive the remaining components of air handler, and thus remain “maintenance free”.
Applicant argues that Engelhart is not analogous art and therefore the combination is improper. In response to applicant's argument that Engelhart is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as noted by Applicant Engelhart is both in the broader field of invention, i.e. condensate handling, and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem of efficiency of condensate handling.
Applicant argues that Examiner’s assertions of inherency are improper. Applicant argues that Examiner has implied that condensation must form on heat exchangers. Examiner did not say that condensation must form on all heat exchangers in all circumstances. Examiner did say “first heat exchanger (i.e. an evaporator) forming a condensate is inherent to air handler #58 of air conditioner”. Examiner notes that most, if not all, home owners/tenants would understand that the heat exchanger of an air handler unit of an air conditioner generates condensate, including, sometimes, to excess. Examiner further notes that Cerdan is directed at a filter system for an air handler for an air conditioning system that typically requires filter replacement every one to six months (paragraph [0002]) and specifically discloses “a structure for directing condensate from an air handler” (paragraph [0004]). One having ordinary skill in the art when presented with this would understand that the air handler of Cerdan is directed at a vapor-compression system air handler. See also attached document regarding “air handler”, which shows that the term is a term of art that is indicative of certain structural components paired with other components (i.e. evaporator/blower in the air handler paired with separate condenser/compressor unit). In this regard, Examiner also notes that the condenser is understood to be present with an air handler having an evaporator that generates condensate. Further, even, if not inherent to air handler as disclosed by Cerdan, a point Examiner does not concede, such components are so well-known the art as to be appropriate for Official Notice, since hundreds, if not thousands, of supporting documents could be readily supplied to support the assertion. Note, for example, column 1, lines 12-22 of US 4,129,013 which is but one example of the known understanding of the term and components of air handler and its associated second heat exchanger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan (US 2014/0109602: previously cited) in view of Engelhart (US 2010/0307910: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Cerdan discloses a separation plate for a heat pump system (see at least baffles #30/#32/#34 and housing #12 of assembly #10), said heat pump system comprising:
a first heat exchanger that forms a condensate (see at least paragraph [0026]: first heat exchanger (i.e. an evaporator) forming a condensate is inherent to air handler #58 of air conditioner);
a second heat exchanger positioned opposite the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0026]: second heat exchanger (i.e. a condenser) situated on the opposite end of the air conditioner from air handler #58 is inherent to air conditioner);
a condensation pan positioned downstream of the first heat exchanger and fluidly coupled to a filtration system comprising the separation plate (see at least Figure 10, pan/tank/collector #102 in communication with filtration system within housing #12 via #104), the condensation pan configured to collect the condensate formed by the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0025]: the water comes from the air handler, and thus from the first heat exchanger); and
a pump fluidically coupled to the separation plate (see at least Figure 10, pump #108, pipe #110), and
said separation plate comprising:
a proximal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with water chamber #78), a distal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with outlet of pipe #110), and a body extending from the proximal end to the distal end (see Figure 10, interior of housing #12), the distal end being elevated relative the proximal end such that the body is sloped (see at least Figure 10, the body is vertically sloped such that the distal end is at the top and the proximal end is at the bottom);
a plurality of walls formed across the body (see at least Figure 10, baffles #30/#32/#34);
Cerdan does not disclose a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls.
Engelhart teaches another plate filtration system comprising a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least paragraphs [0031]; [0035]; [0036]: the distillation apparatus (i.e. plate filtration system) includes fabric or etching that act to contain the liquid by increasing the surface area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plate of Cerdan with a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls, as taught by Engelhart, to improve the plate of Cerdan by increasing the surface area of the walls in the separation plate and ensuring a more even flow (see at least Engelhart paragraphs [0031]; [0035]).
Cerdan as modified by Englelhart further discloses wherein the condensate passively flows from the distal end of the body to the proximal end of the body, such that the condensate flows over each of the plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least Figure 10, the condensate water flows across the baffles #30/#32/#34).
Cerdan as modified by Engelhart to include the containment traps further discloses and configured to remove contaminants from the condensate (the addition of the wick/fabric/etching will permit the filtering of the condensate running down over the baffles of Cerdan; see also MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.; see also MPEP 2115: Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and "not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used." 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based "upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process." The court noted that "the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core" in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable. In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited "[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface." An obviousness rejection was made over a reference to Kienzle which taught a machine for perforating sheets. The court upheld the rejection stating that "the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle." Id. at 580-81. The perforating device had the structure of the taping device as claimed, the difference was in the use of the device, and "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." Id. at 580.).
Regarding claim 2, Cerdan further discloses wherein the body further includes a minimum level of condensate stored within the body (see at least paragraph [0025]: a minimum level of condensate is required to accumulate within water chamber #78 of housing #12 before transfer to pan/tank/collector #102; c.f. Figure 10).
Regarding claims 3-7, Cerdan in view of Englehart does not disclose wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include baffle chambers; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include magnetic traps, instead teaching fabric (wick) or etched containment traps (see at least Englehart paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include baffle chambers; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include magnetic traps would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Englehart system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed containment trap types. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed containment trap types solve any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may include” the claimed types or others (see paragraphs [0036]-[0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the containment trap types as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart with wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include baffle chambers; and/or wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include magnetic traps as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Cerdan as modified by Englehart to include the containment traps further discloses wherein:
the plurality of walls includes a first wall (see at least baffle #30) and a second wall (see for example baffle #32);
the plurality of containment traps includes a first plurality of contaminant traps (see for example baffle #30, which, as modified above includes containment traps) and a second plurality of contaminant traps (see for example baffle #32, which, as modified above includes containment traps); and
the first wall has the first plurality of containment traps and the second wall has the second plurality of containment traps (see for example baffle #30, which, as modified above includes containment traps; see for example baffle #32, which, as modified above includes containment traps).
Regarding claim 21, Cerdan further discloses wherein the pump is configured to distribute filtered condensate (see at least paragraph [0077]; [0073]-[0076]: c.f. Figure 10, the sludge in the water is filtered by the weir #116 and thus the pump can be understood to distribute filtered condensate).
Claim(s) 9-10, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan (US 2014/0109602: previously cited) in view of Engelhart (US 2010/0307910: previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Cerdan discloses a heat pump system (see at least air handler unit #58, which is part of an air conditioner (heat pump) unit comprising:
a first heat exchanger that forms a condensate (see at least paragraph [0026]: first heat exchanger (i.e. an evaporator) forming a condensate is inherent to air handler #58 of air conditioner);
a second heat exchanger positioned opposite the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0026]: second heat exchanger (i.e. a condenser) situated on the opposite end of the air conditioner from air handler #58 is inherent to air conditioner);
a compressor positioned between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0026]: compressor situated between first and second heat exchangers is inherent to air conditioner);
a condensation pan positioned downstream of the first heat exchanger (see at least Figure 10, pan/tank/collector #102, the condensation pan configured to collect the condensate formed by the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0025]: the water comes from the air handler, and thus from the first heat exchanger);
a filtration system fluidly coupled to the condensation pan to receive the condensate collected by the condensation pan, the filtration system further including a separation plate (see at least baffles #30/#32/#34 and housing #12 of assembly #10), the separation plate comprising:
a proximal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with water chamber #78), a distal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with outlet of pipe #110), and a body extending from the proximal end to the distal end (see Figure 10, interior of housing #12), the distal end being elevated relative the proximal end such that the body is sloped (see at least Figure 10, the body is vertically sloped such that the distal end is at the top and the proximal end is at the bottom);
a plurality of walls formed across the body (see at least Figure 10, baffles #30/#32/#34);
and a pump fluidly coupled to the proximal end of the separation plate (a distribution system fluidically coupled to the separation plate (see at least Figure 10, pump #108, pipe #110).
Cerdan does not disclose a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls.
Engelhart teaches another plate filtration system comprising a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least paragraphs [0031]; [0035]; [0036]: the distillation apparatus (i.e. plate filtration system) includes fabric or etching that act to contain the liquid by increasing the surface area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plate of Cerdan with a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls, as taught by Engelhart, to improve the plate of Cerdan by increasing the surface area of the walls in the separation plate and ensuring a more even flow (see at least Engelhart paragraphs [0031]; [0035]).
Cerdan as modified by Englelhart further discloses wherein the condensate passively flows from the distal end of the body to the proximal end of the body, such that the condensate flows over each of the plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least Figure 10, the condensate water flows across the baffles #30/#32/#34).
Cerdan as modified by Engelhart to include the containment traps further discloses and configured to remove contaminants from the condensate (the addition of the wick/fabric/etching will permit the filtering of the condensate running down over the baffles of Cerdan; see also MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.; see also MPEP 2115: Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and "not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used." 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based "upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process." The court noted that "the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core" in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable. In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited "[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface." An obviousness rejection was made over a reference to Kienzle which taught a machine for perforating sheets. The court upheld the rejection stating that "the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle." Id. at 580-81. The perforating device had the structure of the taping device as claimed, the difference was in the use of the device, and "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." Id. at 580.).
Regarding claim 10, Cerdan further discloses wherein the distal end of the separation plate fluidly couples the filtration system to the condensation pan (see at least Figure 10, the distal end of housing #12 receives the water from the pan/tank/collector #102).
Regarding claim 13, Cerdan further discloses wherein the body of the separation plate further includes a minimum level of condensate stored within the body (see at least paragraph [0025]: a minim level of condensate is required to accumulate within water chamber #78 of housing #12 before transfer to pan/tank/collector #102; c.f. Figure 10).
Regarding claims 14-17, Cerdan as modified by Englehart to include the containment traps further discloses wherein:
the plurality of walls includes a first wall (see at least baffle #30) and a second wall (see for example baffle #32);
the plurality of containment traps includes a first plurality of contaminant traps (see for example baffle #30, which, as modified above includes containment traps) and a second plurality of contaminant traps (see for example baffle #32, which, as modified above includes containment traps); and
the first wall has the first plurality of containment traps and the second wall has the second plurality of containment traps (see for example baffle #30, which, as modified above includes containment traps; see for example baffle #32, which, as modified above includes containment traps).
Cerdan in view of Englehart does not disclose wherein the first plurality of contaminant traps are of a different type from the second plurality of contaminant traps; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media, instead teaching fabric (wick) or etched containment traps (see at least Englehart paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the first plurality of contaminant traps are of a different type from the second plurality of contaminant traps; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Englehart system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed containment trap types. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed containment trap types solve any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may include” the claimed types or others (see paragraphs [0036]-[0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the containment trap types as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart with wherein the first plurality of contaminant traps are of a different type from the second plurality of contaminant traps; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan in view of Englehart as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Riccardi (US 2006/0249028: previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Cerdan in view of Englehart does not disclose further comprising a misting nozzle fluidly coupled to the pump.
Riccardi teaches another plate filtration system comprising a misting nozzle fluidly coupled to a pump (see at least paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart with further comprising a misting nozzle fluidly coupled to the pump, as taught by Riccardi, to improve the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart by ensuring even application of the water/fluid to the plate(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights