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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1.
Re claim 1, Hopper et al. teach a thermal control unit (22) comprising: a fluid circuit (54) having a fluid outlet (24) adapted to couple to a fluid supply line (“fluid supply line or hose 30a” paragraph 49 lines 8-9) and a fluid inlet (26) adapted to couple to a fluid return line (“fluid return line or hose 30b” paragraph 49 line 18);
a removable (fig 23) reservoir (38) for supplying fluid to the fluid circuit, the removable reservoir adapted to be lifted out of the thermal control unit;
a heat exchanger (58) in the fluid circuit and adapted to change a temperature of the fluid in the fluid circuit;
a pump (52) for circulating fluid supplied by the removable reservoir through the fluid circuit;
an air eliminator (68) for venting air from the fluid circuit to the ambient surroundings;
a check valve (70) positioned between the removable reservoir and the fluid circuit, the check valve adapted to prevent fluid from flowing out of the fluid circuit and into the removable reservoir (fig 5; paragraph 70, noting that noting that that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘check valve’ is a valve that permits flow in one direction only, and the valve 70 is capable of acting as a check valve by preventing flow in a direction when the reservoir is removed) ;
and a controller (72) adapted to control the heat exchanger such that a temperature of the circulating fluid is adjustable toward a desired temperature (paragraphs 62-64).
Hopper et al. fail to explicitly teach valve details.
Beckius teach a check valve positioned between the removable reservoir and the fluid circuit, the check valve adapted to prevent fluid from flowing out of the fluid circuit and into the removable reservoir while the removable reservoir is positioned in the thermal control unit (para 33) to prevent back pressure from heated water from returning heat water against flow back into the reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include valve details as taught by Beckius in the Hopper et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for supporting the direction of water flow through the modular water heater .
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1¸Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2 and Li et al (Removal and retention of viral aerosols by a novel alumina nanofiber filter) .
Re claim 2, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach filter details.
Cardones et al. teach further including an air and liquid filter coupled to the removable reservoir, the air and liquid filter adapted to filter the fluid when the fluid is poured into the removable reservoir, and to filter air escaping from the removable reservoir to the ambient surroundings (col 4 noting when pouring it is noted splashing is capable of producing airborne particles and vapor which would still be filtered by the filter and thus the filter is considered and air and water filter, so no structure is claimed more than “filter” and naming the filter “air and liquid” without further defining the structure, col 4 lines 20-60) to filter out contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Cardones et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for purification of water supplies used for sources.
Additionally, Li et al teach the air and liquid filter adapted to filter the fluid when the fluid is poured into the removable reservoir, and to filter air escaping from the removable reservoir to the ambient surroundings to provide a filter to filter air and liquid (page 70 noting the reference Cardones teach the use of different types of nano filters col 4 lines 40-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Li et al in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for advanced filtration with low pressure drop.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al and Beckius US 20030070430 A1 in view of Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al.
Re claim 9, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach filter details.
Groesbeck teach the removable reservoir includes an air filter (118) in fluid communication with an interior of the removable reservoir, the air filter adapted to filter air escaping from the interior of the removable reservoir (para 65) into the ambient surroundings to filter out contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Groesbeck in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for purification of water supplies with air ventilation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1, Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2 and Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al.
Re claim 5, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach filter details.
Cardones et al. teach and the liquid filter adapted to filter the fluid when the fluid is poured into the removable reservoir (col 4 noting when pouring it is noted splashing is capable of producing airborne particles and vapor which would still be filtered by the filter and thus the filter is considered and air and water filter, so no structure is claimed more than “filter” and naming the filter “air and liquid” without further defining the structure, col 4 lines 20-60) to filter out contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Cardones et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for purification of water supplies used for sources.
Additionally, Groesbeck teach an air filter (118) coupled to the removable reservoir, the air filter adapted to filter air escaping from the removable reservoir to the ambient surroundings (para 65) to filter out contaminants.
When combined, the instant combination teach an air filter coupled to the removable reservoir and a liquid filter coupled to the removable reservoir, the air filter adapted to filter air escaping from the removable reservoir to the ambient surroundings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air and liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from , the removable reservoir as taught by Groesbeck in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to advantageously allow for purification of water supplies with air ventilation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2 and Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al.
Re claim 11, Hopper et al. teach
a thermal control unit (22) comprising: a fluid circuit (54) having a fluid outlet (24) adapted to couple to a fluid supply line (“fluid supply line or hose 30a” paragraph 49 lines 8-9) and a fluid inlet (26) adapted to couple to a fluid return line(“fluid return line or hose 30b” paragraph 49 line 18);
a reservoir (38) for supplying fluid to the fluid circuit,
a heat exchanger (38) in the fluid circuit and adapted to change a temperature of the fluid in the fluid circuit;
a pump (52) for circulating fluid supplied by the reservoir through the fluid circuit;
and a controller (72) adapted to control the heat exchanger such that a temperature of the circulating fluid is adjustable toward a desired temperature (paragraphs 62-64).
Hopper et al. fail to explicitly teach filter details.
Cardones et al. teach the reservoir including
a liquid filter in fluid communication with an interior of the reservoir, the liquid filter adapted to filter the fluid while the fluid is poured into the reservoir (col 4 noting when pouring it is noted splashing is capable of producing airborne particles and vapor which would still be filtered by the filter and thus the filter is considered and air and water filter, so no structure is claimed more than “filter” and naming the filter “air and liquid” without further defining the structure, col 4 lines 20-60) to filter out contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Cardones et al. in the Hopper et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for purification of water supplies used for sources.
Hopper et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach filter details.
Groesbeck teach an air filter (118) integrated into the reservoir, the air filter adapted to filter air escaping from an interior of the reservoir (para 65) to filter out contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Groesbeck in the Hopper et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for purification of water supplies with air ventilation.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “while the fluid is poured into the reservoir” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
For clarity, the recitation “…while the fluid is poured into the reservoir …” has been considered a functional limitation. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g). In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1, Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, Li et al, and Lewis US 9,504,601 Bl.
Re claim 3, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the air filter has a pore size adapted to filter out particles of 0.2 microns or larger.
Lewis teaches the air filter has a pore size adapted to filter out particles of 0.2 microns or larger (col 5 last five lines noting that “HEPA filters having pore openings less than 0.22” are capable of filtering out particles of 0.2 microns or larger and therefore the claim limitations are met) to filter microbes and dust particles at an air outlet of a system (col 5 last five lines, noting any filter can be used in the instant combination of claim 2 as taught by the Cardones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air filter has a pore size adapted to filter out particles of 0.2 microns or larger as taught by Lewis in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased sterility by preventing spreading of dust and microbes to patients (col 5).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1, Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, Li et al. , further in view of Morita et al. US 2005/0081716 A1 and Witter US 20040187449 A1.
Re claim 4, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach liquid filter details.
Morita et al. teach the liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid (23) adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from, the removable reservoir (paragraph 117 noting that if the filter must be detached from the cap from removal it is naturally attached to and therefore considered integrated into one unit in the disclose embodiment; paragraph 18 noting that the filter is capable meeting the claim limitations since being exchanged and therefore is capable of being “selectively attached to, and detached from, the reservoir“) to allow for the filter to be exchanged in a maintenance operation (paragraphs 117-118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include liquid filter details as taught by Morita et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for quicker and more cost effective filter exchange during the operational life of the system (paragraph 118).
Additionally, Witter teach the air filter is integrated into a removable lid (62, 60, 64) adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from (claim 2) to provide a removable air filter.
When combined, the instant combination teach the air and liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from , the removable reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air and liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from , the removable reservoir as taught by Witter in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a replaceable air filter when required and filled with contaminates as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1, Castrigno et al. US 8,419,842 B2 and Witter US 20040187449 A1.
Re claim 6, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the air eliminator includes a plug having a position that varies in response to a level of the fluid in the thermal control unit, the plug adapted to fluidly isolate the air filter from the fluid in the thermal control unit if the level of the fluid in the thermal control unit exceeds a threshold.
Castrigno et al. teach the air eliminator (100) includes a plug (138, 140, 142) having a position that varies in response to a level of the fluid (due to connection with 140, col 2 lines 40-67) in the thermal control unit, and the plug is adapted to fluidly isolate the air filter from the fluid in the thermal control unit if the level of the fluid in the thermal control unit exceeds a threshold (col 2 lines 50-65 noting that air and therefore fluid cannot exit the vent 132 when the float rises, which raises the plug due to the coupling; also noting in the instant combination, the plug modifies the main body of the air eliminator of Hopper et al., and therefore the air filter is between the exit of the plug in the air eliminator since the air filter is placed adjacent to the air eliminator exit and therefore, when combined, the references teach the plug adapted to fluidly isolate the air filter from the fluid in the thermal control unit if the level of the fluid in the thermal control unit exceeds a threshold) to remove gas such as air from a liquid with a body which encourages greater degassing from a fluid and prevents air pocket buildups (col 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air eliminator includes a plug having a position that varies in response to a level of the fluid in the thermal control unit, the plug adapted to fluidly isolate the air filter from the fluid in the thermal control unit if the level of the fluid in the thermal control unit exceeds a threshold as taught by Castrigno et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduction in erratic pumping performance, vibrating noise ( e.g., knocking) and other undesirable effects caused by entrapped air in a liquid loop (col 1).
Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the air eliminator includes an air filter.
Witter teach the air eliminator includes an air filter (claim 2, in the instant combination) to provide a removable air filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air eliminator includes an air filter as taught by Witter in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a replaceable air filter when required and filled with contaminates as is known in the art.
Re claim 7, Castrigno et al. teach the plug is adapted to float in the fluid and to rise and fall with rising and falling levels of fluid, respectively, in the thermal control unit (col 2 lines 40-67, and col 3 lines 1-25, noting that in the instant combination the plug is added to the air eliminator of Hopper et al. and thus is in the contact with rising and falling levels of fluid in the thermal control unit; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing, and when air bubbles are eliminated from the fluid the fluid will naturally fall to a certain extent, and that a float naturally rests on a surface or buoyant level which depends on the height of the fluid).
Re claim 8, Hopper as modified, fail to teach details of the plug and position of the air filter.
Castrigno et al. teach the plug is adapted to sealingly engage an aperture when the plug rises past a threshold height (“blocks the first vent 132 to prevent air from exiting the chamber” col 2 lines 60-61; col 2 lines 60-67) to remove gas such as air from a liquid with a body which encourages greater degassing from a fluid and prevents air pocket buildups (col 2).
When combined, the references teach the aperture being positioned between the air filter and the fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the plug sealingly engages an aperture and the aperture being positioned between the air filter and the fluid as taught by Castrigno et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduction in erratic pumping performance, vibrating noise ( e.g., knocking) and other undesirable effects caused by entrapped air in a liquid loop (col 1).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Beckius US 20030070430 A1, Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, further in view of Morita et al. US 2005/0081716 A1 and Witter US 20040187449 A1.
Re claim 10, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach liquid filter details.
Morita et al. teach a removable lid (23) adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from, the removable reservoir (paragraph 117; paragraph 18 noting that the filter is capable meeting the claim limitations since being exchanged and therefore is capable of being “selectively attached to, and detached from, the reservoir“) to allow for a maintenance operation (paragraphs 117-118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include liquid filter details as taught by Morita et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for quicker and more cost effective filter exchange during the operational life of the system (paragraph 118).
Additionally, Witter teach the air filter is integrated into a removable lid (62, 60, 64) adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from (claim 2) to provide a removable air filter.
When combined, the instant combination teach the air and liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from , the removable reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air and liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from , the removable reservoir as taught by Witter in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a replaceable air filter when required and filled with contaminates as is known in the art.
Claims 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al, further in view of Morita et al. US 2005/0081716 A1.
Re claim 12, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach liquid filter details.
Morita et al. teach the liquid filter is integrated into a removable lid (23) adapted to be selectively attached to, and detached from, the reservoir (paragraph 117 noting that if the filter must be detached from the cap from removal it is naturally attached to and therefore considered integrated into one unit in the disclose embodiment; paragraph 18 noting that the filter is capable meeting the claim limitations since being exchanged and therefore is capable of being “selectively attached to, and detached from, the reservoir“) to allow for the filter to be exchanged in a maintenance operation (paragraphs 117-118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include liquid filter details as taught by Morita et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for quicker and more cost effective filter exchange during the operational life of the system (paragraph 118).
Re claim 15, Hopper et al. teach further including a check valve (70) positioned between the reservoir and the fluid circuit, the check valve adapted to prevent fluid from flowing out of the fluid circuit and into the reservoir (fig 5; paragraph 70, noting that noting that that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘check valve’ is a valve that permits flow in one direction only, and the valve 70 is capable of acting as a check valve by preventing flow in a direction when the reservoir is removed).
Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al, further in view of Morita et al. US 2005/0081716 A
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al, Morita et al. US 2005/0081716 A1 and Witter US 20040187449 A1 and Lewis US 9,504,601 Bl.
Re claim 14, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the air filter has a pore size adapted to filter out particles of 0.2 microns or larger.
Lewis teaches the air filter has a pore size adapted to filter out particles of 0.2 microns or larger (col 5 last five lines noting that “HEPA filters having pore openings less than 0.22” are capable of filtering out particles of 0.2 microns or larger and therefore the claim limitations are met) to filter microbes and dust particles at an air outlet of a system (col 5 last five lines, noting any filter can be used in the instant combination of claim 2 as taught by the Cardones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air filter has a pore size adapted to filter out particles of 0.2 microns or larger as taught by Lewis in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased sterility by preventing spreading of dust and microbes to patients (col 5).
Claims 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper et al. US 2014/0343639 Al in view of Cardones et al. US 10,376,449 B2, Groesbeck US 2016/0207751 Al, Morita et al. US 2005/0081716 A1 in view of Castrigno et al. US 8,419,842 B2 and Witter US 20040187449 A1.
Re claim 16, Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the air eliminator.
Castrigno et al. teach an air eliminator (100) for venting air from the fluid circuit to the ambient surroundings, the air eliminator a plug (138, 140, 142) having a position that varies in response to a level of fluid in the thermal control unit, wherein the plug is adapted to fluidly isolate the air filter from the fluid in the thermal control unit if the level of fluid in the thermal control unit exceeds a threshold (due to connection with 140, col 2 lines 40-67, col 2) to remove gas such as air from a liquid with a body which encourages greater degassing from a fluid and prevents air pocket buildups (col 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air eliminator includes a plug having a position that varies in response to a level of the fluid in the thermal control unit, the plug adapted to fluidly isolate the air filter from the fluid in the thermal control unit if the level of the fluid in the thermal control unit exceeds a threshold as taught by Castrigno et al. in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduction in erratic pumping performance, vibrating noise ( e.g., knocking) and other undesirable effects caused by entrapped air in a liquid loop (col 1).
Hopper et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the air eliminator includes an air filter.
Witter teach the air eliminator includes an air filter (claim 2, in the instant combination) to provide a removable air filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the air eliminator includes an air filter as taught by Witter in the Hopper et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a replaceable air filter when required and filled with contaminates as is known in the art.
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “if” is a conditional phrase.
Re claim 17, Hopper et al. teach wherein the reservoir is adapted to be lifted out of the thermal control unit without leaking fluid (see the rejections of claim 1).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “without leaking fluid” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763