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 April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection.
On page 6 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the amendments made to the claims and Specification. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous Specification objection and previous 112 rejections as a result.
On pages 6-9, Applicant argues against the previous prior art rejection of independent Claim 1, presently amended, regarding the usage of primary reference Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), and secondary reference Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731). Applicant argues that Bushey does not appear to have defined folds or defined panels. The Examiner notes that Bushey explicitly states that there are folding portions such as folding portions 26 and portions defined between slots 20 & 22, (See paragraph [0028] & [0029], Bushey). Thus, these portions are considered panels as well. The Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive.
Then, Applicant argues against Merkazy, notes that its collapsible article, or strainer, is defined by a series of separated leaves that nest together. Applicant argues that these leaves are not defined panels nor folds. The Examiner notes that the separated leaves do define panels, and that they all collapse or fold together to collapse the article or strainer into a smaller design. The Examiner also notes that Bushey already discloses folds and panels. Thus, the Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive since it is a piecemeal analysis of the references. 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).
Applicant argues that the design of Merkazy allegedly operates completely differently from the claimed invention in which its panels and folds allow twisting around a central axis. However, the Examiner notes that Merkazy has its panels collapse together, twisting or swiveling around a central focus point to fold into a smaller design, which the Examiner finds to read upon this claim limitation. Thus, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 & 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731).
Regarding Claims 1, 2 & 4-6, Bushey discloses a filter for a basket, basin, or sink, (See Abstract), the filter comprising: a filter, (Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] & [0029]), having a peripheral region, (Outer edge of Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] & [0029]), a plurality of panels, (Folding Portions 26, 28, 30, 32, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0031]), and a central collection region, (central portion of Strainer 10 that is unfolded and has no slots, See Figure 1 or 2), the peripheral region having an upper surface and a lower surface, (Strainer 10 inherently has top and bottom, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028]), and the plurality of panels extending from the central collection region towards the peripheral region, (Folding Portions 26/28/30/32 extend from middle outwards in Strainer 10, or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 1 or 2); and one or more folds in the filter, (Slots 18/20/22/24 for Folding Portions 26/28/30/32, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] and [0031]), each of the one or more folds permitting each of the plurality of panels to overlap an adjacent portion of the filter, (See paragraph [0031]; strainer can be folded into basket-like configuration in which foldable portions overlap with handles), wherein the filter can be unfolded from a folded orientation to a partially unfolded orientation, (See paragraph [0031]), wherein the filter is removably disposed atop an exterior surface of a basket, basin, or sink, (See paragraph [0033]).
Bushey does not disclose the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis.
Merkazy discloses a filter, (See Abstract, paragraph [0024], [0070], Merkazy), the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis, (See Figure 1 & 6, See paragraph [0066] & [0067], Merkazy; folds/leaves are twisted around central axis when unfolding/expanding leaves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of Bushey by incorporating the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis as in Merkazy so that that “the article…is of less volume than in the expanded configuration” and “not only is this volume reduced, but the space required for storage may be further reduced since there is reduced waste space around the collapsed article” and “allows for efficient use of space” while using “a shape that is practical”, (See paragraph [0007], Merkazy).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The filter of claim 1, further comprising: at least one tab along an exterior edge of the peripheral region, (Folding Portions 26/28/30/32 shaped like tabs, See Figure 1; or Tabs 72/74/76/78 on Strainer 40, See Figure 2).
Claim 4: The filter of claim 1wherein the filter comprises at least one of the following: bleached or unbleached liquid permeable filter paper, liquid permeable filter paper, metal mesh material, plastic mesh material, natural fiber material, and synthetic fabric, (See paragraph [0028], [0009], [0043]).
Claim 5: The filter of claim 1, wherein the central collection region is polygon-shaped, (unfolded central portion would result in square shape when Strainer 10/40 is folded, See Figure 1 or 2), and the plurality of panels is polygon-shaped, (Foldable portions 26/28/30/32, See Figure 1 or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 2).
Claim 6: The filter of claim 1, wherein the plurality of panels is four, (Foldable portions 26/28/30/32, See Figure 1 or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 2; there are four foldable portions/panels).
Regarding Claims 9-13, Bushey discloses a method for installing a filter for a basin or sink, (See Abstract), the method comprising: providing a filter, (Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] & [0029]), having: a peripheral region, (Outer edge of Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] & [0029]), a plurality of panels, (Folding Portions 26, 28, 30, 32, See Figure 1, or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 2, See paragraph [0031]), a central collection region, (central portion of Strainer 10 that is unfolded and has no slots, See Figure 1 or 2), including a rim having an upper surface and a lower surface, (Strainer 10 inherently has top and bottom, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028]), and the plurality of panels extending from the central collection region towards the peripheral region, (Folding Portions 26/28/30/32 extend from middle outwards in Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2); and unfolding the filter along one or more folds in the filter, (See paragraph [0031]), each of the one or more folds permitting each of the plurality of panels to overlap an adjacent portion of the filter, wherein the filter can be unfolded from a folded orientation to a partially unfolded orientation, (See paragraph [0031]), disposing the filter atop an exterior surface of a basket, basin, or sink, (See paragraph [0033]).
Bushey does not disclose the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis.
Merkazy discloses a filter, (See Abstract, paragraph [0024], [0070], Merkazy), the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis, (See Figure 1 & 6, See paragraph [0066] & [0067], Merkazy; folds/leaves are twisted around central axis when unfolding/expanding leaves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of Bushey by incorporating the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis as in Merkazy so that that “the article…is of less volume than in the expanded configuration” and “not only is this volume reduced, but the space required for storage may be further reduced since there is reduced waste space around the collapsed article” and “allows for efficient use of space” while using “a shape that is practical”, (See paragraph [0007], Merkazy).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 10: The method of claim 9, wherein the filter further comprises at least one tab along an exterior edge of the peripheral region, (Folding Portions 26/28/30/32 shaped like tabs, See Figure 1; or Tabs 72/74/76/78 on Strainer 40, See Figure 2).
Claim 11: The method of claim 9, wherein the filter comprises at least one of the following: bleached or unbleached liquid permeable filter paper, metal mesh material, plastic mesh material, natural fiber material, and synthetic fabric, (See paragraph [0028], [0009], [0043]).
Claim 12: The method of claim 9, wherein the central collection region is square-shaped, (unfolded central portion would result in square shape when Strainer 10/40 is folded, See Figure 1 or 2), and the plurality of panels is polygon-shaped, (Foldable portions 26/28/30/32, See Figure 1 or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 2).
Claim 13: The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of panels is four, (Foldable portions 26/28/30/32, See Figure 1 or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 2; there are four foldable portions/panels).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Kalaydjian, (US 9,834,916).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Bushey discloses the filter of claim 1 but does not disclose further comprising: an indentation in an exterior edge of the peripheral region, wherein the indentation is disposed around an external surface of a base of a faucet when the filter is disposed atop the exterior surface of the basket, basin, or sink.
Kalaydjian discloses a filter with an indentation in an exterior edge of the peripheral region, wherein the indentation is disposed around an external surface of a base of a faucet when the filter is disposed atop the exterior surface of the basket, basin, or sink, (Indentation 44 in Filter 20 disposed around Faucet 66, See Figure 5, See column 2, lines 47-57, Kalaydjian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of modified Bushey by incorporating an indentation in an exterior edge of the peripheral region, wherein the indentation is disposed around an external surface of a base of a faucet when the filter is disposed atop the exterior surface of the basket, basin, or sink as in Kalaydjian so it “thus provides the filter with an improved fit around the exterior surface of the sink”, (See column 2, lines 3-5, Kalaydjian), in order to “catch debris”, (See column 1, lines 20-21, Kalaydjian).
Claim(s) 7 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Harrison et al., (“Harrison”, US 3,216,644).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Bushey discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the one or more folds comprises a set of origami-type folds that permits twisting of the filter around a central axis when unfolding the filter from the folded orientation to the partially unfolded orientation, (See Figure 1 & 6, See paragraph [0066] & [0067], Merkazy; folds/leaves are twisted around central axis when unfolding/expanding leaves).
Modified Bushey does not disclose the one or more folds are a set of square twist origami-type folds.
Harrison discloses the one or more folds are a set of square twist origami-type folds, (See column 8, lines 44-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein the one or more folds comprises a set of origami-type folds that permits twisting of the filter around a central axis when unfolding the filter from the folded orientation to the partially unfolded orientation as in Harrison to “provide a disposable sink strainer which will fold flat and set up easily” in which it has “bottom walls of differing geometrical configurations”, such as squares, (See column 8, lines 50-53, Harrison).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Bushey discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more folds comprises a set of origami-type folds that permits twisting of the filter around a central axis when unfolding the filter from the folded orientation to the partially unfolded orientation, (See Figure 1 & 6, See paragraph [0066] & [0067], Merkazy; folds/leaves are twisted around central axis when unfolding/expanding leaves).
Modified Bushey does not disclose the one or more folds are a set of square twist origami-type folds.
Harrison discloses the one or more folds are a set of square twist origami-type folds, (See column 8, lines 44-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein the one or more folds comprises a set of origami-type folds that permits twisting of the filter around a central axis when unfolding the filter from the folded orientation to the partially unfolded orientation as in Harrison to “provide a disposable sink strainer which will fold flat and set up easily” in which it has “bottom walls of differing geometrical configurations”, such as squares, (See column 8, lines 50-53, Harrison).
Claim(s) 8 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Hanson et al., (“Hanson”, US 2015/0305571).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Bushey discloses the filter of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the one or more folds comprises at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold.
Hanson discloses wherein the one or more folds comprises at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold, (See Figure 5a-c, See paragraph [0010], [0042], [0046] & [0047], Hanson; the shape of the folds in Figure 5c are tessellation type folds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein the one or more folds comprises at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold as in Hanson so it “can be compressed and deformed to snap into/out of” its position in the basin, (See paragraph [0045], Hanson), and “separate liquid…as it migrates down the sloping side walls through the centrally located aperture”, (See paragraph [0010], Hanson).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Bushey discloses the method of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the one or more folds comprises at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold.
Hanson discloses wherein the one or more folds comprises at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold, (See Figure 5a-c, See paragraph [0010], [0042], [0046] & [0047], Hanson; the shape of the folds in Figure 5c are tessellation type folds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein the one or more folds comprises at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold as in Hanson so it “can be compressed and deformed to snap into/out of” its position in the basin, (See paragraph [0045], Hanson), and “separate liquid…as it migrates down the sloping side walls through the centrally located aperture”, (See paragraph [0010], Hanson).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Burmaster et al., (“Burmaster”, US 2006/0128842), in further view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731).
Regarding Claim 16, Bushey discloses a process using a filter for a basket, basin, or sink, (See Abstract), the process comprising: providing a filter material; providing a disposable filter for a basket, basin or sink, (Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] & [0029]), the filter comprising: a peripheral region, (Outer edge of Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] & [0029]); a plurality of panels, (Folding Portions 26, 28, 30, 32, See Figure 1, or Foldable portions 64/66/68/70, See Figure 2, See paragraph [0031]); a central collection region, (central portion of Strainer 10 that is unfolded and has no slots, See Figure 1 or 2), including a rim having an upper surface and a lower surface, (Strainer 10 inherently has top and bottom, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028]), and the plurality of panels extending from the central collection region towards the peripheral region, (Folding Portions 26/28/30/32 extend from middle outwards in Strainer 10, See Figure 1 or 2); and one or more folds in the filter, (Slots 18/20/22/24 for Folding Portions 26/28/30/32, See Figure 1 or 2, See paragraph [0028] and [0031]), each of the one or more folds permitting each of the plurality of panels to overlap an adjacent portion of the filter, wherein the filter can be unfolded from a folded orientation to a partially unfolded orientation, (See paragraph [0031]).
Bushey does not disclose a manufacturing process for the filter; providing a die to mold the filter material; or molding the filter material to manufacture a disposable filter for a basin or sink, or the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis.
Burmaster discloses a manufacturing process for the filter, (See paragraph [0211], Burmaster); providing a die to mold the filter material, (See paragraph [0214], [0009]); and molding the filter material to manufacture a disposable filter for a basin or sink, (See paragraphs [0211], [0214], [0009], Burmaster).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Bushey by incorporating a manufacturing process for the filter; providing a die to mold the filter material; or molding the filter material to manufacture a disposable filter for a basin or sink as in Burmaster in order to provide “strainers” that “may desirably be prepared using…injection molded products”, (See paragraph [0211], Burmaster), using plastics or polymers “that offer relatively good strength and other performance properties”, (See paragraph [0004], Burmaster).
Bushey does not disclose the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis.
Merkazy discloses a filter, (See Abstract, paragraph [0024], [0070], Merkazy), the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis, (See Figure 1 & 6, See paragraph [0066] & [0067], Merkazy; folds/leaves are twisted around central axis when unfolding/expanding leaves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of Bushey by incorporating the one or more folds facilitating twisting of the plurality of panels around a central axis as in Merkazy so that that “the article…is of less volume than in the expanded configuration” and “not only is this volume reduced, but the space required for storage may be further reduced since there is reduced waste space around the collapsed article” and “allows for efficient use of space” while using “a shape that is practical”, (See paragraph [0007], Merkazy).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Burmaster et al., (“Burmaster”, US 2006/0128842), in further view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Laera, (US 2018/0238033).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Bushey discloses the process of claim 16, wherein molding the filter further comprises molding the filter to make the central collection region square-shaped, (central portion in Strainer 10 that lacks folds/slots is square shaped, See Figure 1), but does not disclose the plurality of panels rectangular- shaped.
Laera discloses a filter or strainer, (See Abstract, Laera), where the plurality of panels are rectangular- shaped, (Sides 104 are rectangular shaped, See Figure 9 or 11, Laera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Bushey by incorporating the plurality of panels rectangular- shaped as in Laera so that “a strainer…may have any shape permitting it to fit in the bottom of the sink including…rectangular” and “which permits it to be secured to one or more strainer sections”, (See paragraph [0031], Laera).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Burmaster et al., (“Burmaster”, US 2006/0128842), in further view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Harrison et al., (“Harrison”, US 3,216,644).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Bushey discloses the process of claim 16, wherein molding the filter further comprises molding the filter, (See paragraphs [0211], [0214], [0009], Burmaster), to make the one or more folds comprising a set of origami-type folds that permits twisting of the filter around a central axis when unfolding the filter from the folded orientation to the partially unfolded orientation, (See Figure 1 & 6, See paragraph [0066] & [0067], Merkazy; folds/leaves are twisted around central axis when unfolding/expanding leaves), but does not disclose the one or more folds are a set of square twist origami-type folds.
Harrison discloses the one or more folds are a set of square twist origami-type folds, (See column 8, lines 44-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein the one or more folds comprises a set of origami-type folds that permits twisting of the filter around a central axis when unfolding the filter from the folded orientation to the partially unfolded orientation as in Harrison to “provide a disposable sink strainer which will fold flat and set up easily” in which it has “bottom walls of differing geometrical configurations”, such as squares, (See column 8, lines 50-53, Harrison).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Burmaster et al., (“Burmaster”, US 2006/0128842), in further view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Hanson et al., (“Hanson”, US 2015/0305571).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Bushey discloses the method of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein molding the filter further comprises molding the filter material to make the one or more folds comprising at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold.
Hanson discloses wherein molding the filter further comprises molding the filter material to make the one or more folds comprising at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold, (See Figure 5a-c, See paragraph [0010], [0042], [0046] & [0047], Hanson; the shape of the folds in Figure 5c are tessellation type folds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein molding the filter further comprises molding the filter to make the one or more folds comprising at least one of the following: a square twist, and a tessellation fold as in Hanson so it “can be compressed and deformed to snap into/out of” its position in the basin, (See paragraph [0045], Hanson), and “separate liquid…as it migrates down the sloping side walls through the centrally located aperture”, (See paragraph [0010], Hanson).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushey, (US 2006/0060522), in view of Burmaster et al., (“Burmaster”, US 2006/0128842), in further view of Merkazy, (US 2016/0183731), in further view of Kalaydjian, (US 9,834,916).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Bushey discloses the process of claim 16 with a plurality of tabs along an exterior edge of the rim of the central collection region, (Folding Portions 26/28/30/32 shaped like tabs, See Figure 1; or Tabs 72/74/76/78 on Strainer 40, See Figure 2), but does not disclose wherein the filter further comprises a concave-shaped indentation in an exterior edge of the peripheral region; wherein one of the plurality of tabs is disposed adjacent the concave-shaped indentation.
Kalaydjian discloses a filter with a concave-shaped indentation in an exterior edge of the peripheral region, wherein one of the plurality of tabs is disposed adjacent the concave-shaped indentation, (Indentation 44 in Filter 20 and Tab 46 disposed next to Indentation 44, See Figure 5, See column 2, lines 47-57, Kalaydjian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter of modified Bushey by incorporating wherein the filter further comprises a concave-shaped indentation in an exterior edge of the peripheral region; wherein one of the plurality of tabs is disposed adjacent the concave-shaped indentation as in Kalaydjian so it “thus provides the filter with an improved fit around the exterior surface of the sink”, (See column 2, lines 3-5, Kalaydjian), in order to “catch debris”, (See column 1, lines 20-21, Kalaydjian).
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights