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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on December 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 26, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjustable pressure knob is biased towards a plurality of preset locations between 1 degree and 359 degrees relative to the Y- axis as recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Similar objection applies to claim 8 and 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." First, the lack of existence of working examples. The applicant fails to include sufficient amount of direction and/or example as to how to achieve the function of making “the adjustable pressure knob biased towards a plurality of preset locations between 1 degree and 359 degrees relative to the Y-axis” as recited in claim 7. The specification discussed the recited function, but no example is elaborated in the specification and drawings. The Examiner, hence the public, would not know how to make and/or use the invention. Second, the wide breadth of the claims. Claim 7 depends on claims 1 and 2. Claim 1 recites four elements, namely a container, a pump, a dispenser and an adjustable knob. Claims 2 and 7 recite the function or capability of the knob to rotate relative to a Y-axis. The scope of the invention is too wide for the Examiner, hence the public, to know how to make and/or use the invention. Third, the nature of the invention. The complexity or field of the technology needed to make the interactive mechanism to achieve the recited function of control dispensing in a pressure washer requires significant system’s components, components interactions, and resources.
Based on the unknown factors listed above, undue experimentations (in quantity and quality of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure) must be perform to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The Specification also fails to provide existence of working examples. Since the above listed questions were not satisfactorily resolved (from information available in the specification) and consequently raise doubt as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. In fact, claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the original disclosure in drawing fails to show how the adjustable pressure knob is biased towards a plurality of preset locations between 1 degree and 359 degrees relative to the Y-axis as recited in claim 7. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “biased” in line 2 of claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “biased” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The magnitude or strength needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The term “substantially” in line 8 of claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The acceptable deviation from the stated 1 degree is not known. For example, it is unclear if 0.5 degree or 0.99 degree would or would noy meet the limitation “substantially 1 degree?” why and why not? Clarification is respectfully requested.
The term “approximately” in line 2 of claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The acceptable deviation from the stated lower limitation of 1 gallons per minute is not known. For example, it is unclear if 0.5 gallons per minute or 0.99 gallons per minute would or would noy meet the limitation “substantially 1 gallons per minute?” why and why not? Furthermore, the term “approximately” indicates a range (plus or minus the stated flow rate). The term “approximately” introduces a narrow range (0.5 gallons per minute to 1.3 gallons per minute) within a broad range of 1-5 gallons per minute. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 20140263710. Khan hereinafter) in view of Sekera, Jr. et al. (US 4052591. Sekera hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Khan discloses a pressure washer system (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a storage container (inlet of 10 to 48 to 52 and supply from water main) configured to (capable of) receive a volume of liquid;
a pump (44) configured to (capable of) pump the liquid from the container;
a dispenser (46) attached to the container for distributing the liquid out of the container; and
an adjustable pressure knob (86) between the container and the dispenser, the adjustable pressure knob configured to (capable of) only be rotated 360 degrees or less (Abstract and [0010], [0031], [0036] and [0038]), and wherein the adjustable pressure knob is adjustable between:
a first opened position (fully open orientation relative to valve seat 122. [0038]) in which the adjustable pressure knob is rotated relative to the Y-axis (parallel to 100 in Fig. 3) in which the liquid is pumped from the container to the dispenser; and a second closed position (fully closed orientation relative to valve seat 122. [0038]) in which the adjustable pressure knob is further rotated relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid remains within the container.
Khan fails to disclose a first opened position in which the adjustable pressure knob is at a 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid is pumped from the container to the dispenser; and
a second closed position in which the adjustable pressure knob is at a 359 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid remains within the container.
However, Sekera teaches a control system (Figs. 1-13) using an adjustable knob (14) to control the magnitude of the electrical power to heating elements, where a first opened position (1 degree clockwise off the “OFF” position. All positions are ON positions except “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is at a substantially 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis (vertical axis) in which the electrical power is provided to the heating elements; and a second closed (OFF) position in which the adjustable knob is at a substantially 359 (360) degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the electrical power is not provided to the heating elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an infinite switch knob and indicator, as taught by Sekera, to the knob of Khan, in order to provide/indicate the operating condition of the system via the indicated novel and visual indicator structure (Col. 2, lines 61-68 and Fig. 1). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a substantially 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid is pumped from the container to the dispenser; and a second closed position in which the adjustable pressure knob is at a substantially 359 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid remains within the container, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 3, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Sekera’s infinite switch knob and indicator, Sekera further teaches wherein the adjustable knob is adjustable in a plurality of intermediate positions between the first opened position and the second closed position (Fig. 1 of Sekera).
With respect to claim 4, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Sekera’s infinite switch knob and indicator, Khan and Sekera further teach wherein pressure of the liquid increases as the adjustable knob is moved from (turning clockwise) the opened position to the closed position (back to the OFF position. Fig. 1 of Sekera).
With respect to claim 5, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Sekera’s infinite switch knob and indicator, Khan and Sekera further teach wherein the adjustable pressure knob is rotated in a clockwise direction to increase pressure of the liquid; and wherein the adjustable pressure knob is rotated in a counter-clockwise direction to decrease the pressure of the liquid (Fig. 1 of Sekera).
With respect to claim 7, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Sekera’s infinite switch knob and indicator, Sekera further teaches wherein the adjustable knob is biased towards a plurality of preset locations (based on the cam and follower mechanism in Fig. 6 and inclined surface 60 in Fig. 12) between 1 degree and 359 degrees relative to the Y-axis (Col. 3, line 57 to Col. 4, line 18).
With respect to claim 8, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Sekera’s infinite switch knob and indicator, Sekera further teaches wherein the adjustable knob is biased towards (based on the cam and follower mechanism in Fig. 6 and inclined surface 60 in Fig. 12): a first position (clockwise near “LO” away from “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis (off the deepest valley of 60. Fig. 12); a second position (at “4” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 180 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis; and a third position (clockwise near “HI” approaching “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 359 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis; a second position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 180 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis; and a third position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 359 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 9, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Sekera’s infinite switch knob and indicator, Sekera further teaches wherein the adjustable knob is biased towards (based on the cam and follower mechanism in Fig. 6 and inclined surface 60 in Fig. 12): a first position (clockwise near “LO” away from “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis (off the deepest valley of 60. Fig. 12); a second position (at “2” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 90 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis; a third position (at “4” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 180 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis; a fourth position (at “6” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 270 degrees angle relative to the 'Y-axis; and a fifth position (clockwise near “HI” approaching “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is located at a 359 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis; a second position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 90 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis; a third position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 180 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis; a fourth position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 270 degrees angle relative to the 'Y-axis; and a fifth position in which the adjustable knob is located at a 359 degrees angle relative to the Y-axis, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 21, Khan discloses a pressure washer system (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a container (inlet of 10 to 48 to 52 and supply from water main) configured to (capable of) receive a volume of liquid;
a pump (44) configured to (capable of) pump the liquid from the container;
a dispenser (46) attached to the container for distributing the liquid out of the container;
an adjustable pressure knob (86) between the container and the dispenser, the adjustable pressure knob configured to (capable of) only be rotated 360 degrees or less (Abstract and [0010], [0031], [0036] and [0038]),
a first opened position (fully open orientation relative to valve seat 122. [0038]) in which the adjustable pressure knob is rotated relative to the Y-axis (parallel to 100 in Fig. 3) in which the liquid is pumped from the container to the dispenser; and
a second closed position (fully closed orientation relative to valve seat 122. [0038]) in which the adjustable pressure knob is further rotated relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid remains within the container.
Khan fails to disclose a first opened position in which the adjustable pressure knob is at a 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid is pumped from the container to the dispenser; a second closed position in which the adjustable pressure knob is at a 359 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid remains within the container; an intermediate positions between the first opened position and the second closed position; and wherein pressure of the liquid increases as the adjustable pressure knob is moved from the opened position to the closed position; wherein the adjustable pressure knob is rotated in a clockwise direction to increase pressure of the liquid; and wherein the adjustable pressure knob is rotated in a counter-clockwise direction to decrease the pressure of the liquid.
However, Sekera teaches a control system (Figs. 1-13) using an adjustable knob (14) to control the magnitude of the electrical power to heating elements, where a first opened position (1 degree clockwise off the “OFF” position. All positions are ON positions except “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is at a substantially 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis (vertical axis) in which the electrical power is provided to the heating elements; and a second closed (OFF) position in which the adjustable knob is at a substantially 359 (360) degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the electrical power is not provided to the heating elements; an intermediate positions (Fig. 1) between the first opened position and the second closed position; and wherein pressure of the liquid increases as the adjustable pressure knob is moved from (turning clockwise) the opened position to the closed position (back to the OFF position. Fig. 1 of Sekera); wherein the adjustable pressure knob is rotated in a clockwise direction to increase pressure of the liquid; and wherein the adjustable pressure knob is rotated in a counter-clockwise direction to decrease the pressure of the liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an infinite switch knob and indicator, as taught by Sekera, to the knob of Khan, in order to provide/indicate the operating condition of the system via the indicated novel and visual indicator structure (Col. 2, lines 61-68 and Fig. 1). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a substantially 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid is pumped from the container to the dispenser; and a second closed position in which the adjustable pressure knob is at a substantially 359 degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the liquid remains within the container, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Sekera and further in view of Gilpatrick et al. (US 20110171045. Gilpatrick hereinafter).
With respect to claim 10, Khan and Sekera disclose a pressure washer system of claim 1 except for wherein the pump is a triplex pump.
However, Gilpatrick teaches a spraying system (Figs. 1-15) comprising a triplex pump (114. Fig. 1; [0002], [0027] and [0052]) configured to pump the liquid from the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of triplex pump, as taught by Gilpatrick, to Khan’s pump type, in order to pressurized fluid into a desire pressure ([0002], [0027] and [0052]). A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a triplex pump taught by Gilpatrick because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a triplex pump taught by Gilpatrick because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent pump. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, pumping fluid. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent pump would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
With respect to claim 11, Khan and Sekera disclose the pressure washer system of claim 5 except for wherein the pump has a flow rate of between a1-5 gallons per minute.
However, Gilpatrick teaches a spraying system (Figs. 1-15) comprising a triplex pump (114. Fig. 1; [0002], [0027] and [0052]) configured to pump the liquid from the container with a flow rate of between approximately 1-5 gallons per minute ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of triplex pump, as taught by Gilpatrick, to Khan’s pump type, in order to pressurized fluid into a desire pressure and flow rate ([0002], [0027], [0028] and [0052]).
With respect to claim 12, Khan and Sekera’s pressure washer system modified by Gilpatrick’s triplex pump, Gilpatrick further teaches wherein the pump has a flow rate of between 2-4 gallons per minute ([0028]).
With respect to claim 13, Khan and Sekera’s pressure washer system modified by Gilpatrick’s triplex pump, Gilpatrick further teaches wherein the pump pumps the liquid from the container at a pressure of between 10-5,000 pounds per square inch ([0028]).
With respect to claim 14, Khan and Sekera’s pressure washer system modified by Gilpatrick’s triplex pump, Gilpatrick further teaches wherein the pump pumps the liquid from the container at a pressure of between 40-3,500 pounds per square inch ([0028]).
With respect to claim 22, Khan and Sekera disclose a pressure washer system of claim 21 except for wherein a) the pump is a triplex pump having a flow rate of between approximately 1-5 gallons per minute; b) the pump pumps the liquid from the container at a pressure of between approximately 10- 5,000 pounds per square inch. Sekera further teaches wherein the electrical power increases linearly while the adjustable knob is rotated (from “LO” to “HI.” Fig. 1).
However, Gilpatrick teaches a spraying system (Figs. 1-15) comprising a triplex pump (114. Fig. 1; [0002], [0027] and [0052]) having a flow rate of between approximately 1-5 gallons per minute; b) the pump pumps the liquid from the container at a pressure of between approximately 10- 5,000 pounds per square inch ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of triplex pump, as taught by Gilpatrick, to Khan’s pump type, in order to pressurized fluid into a desire pressure ([0002], [0027] and [0052]). A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a triplex pump taught by Gilpatrick because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a triplex pump taught by Gilpatrick because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent pump. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, pumping fluid. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent pump would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Gilpatrick and further in view of Sekera.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Khan’s pressure washer system modified by Gilpatrick’s triplex pump. Khan and Gilpatrick fail to disclose wherein pressure increases linearly while the adjustable knob is rotated (Claim 15) and wherein pressure increases non-linearly while the adjustable knob is rotated (Claim 16).
However, Sekera teaches a control system (Figs. 1-13) using an adjustable knob (14) to control the magnitude of the electrical power to heating elements, where a first opened position (1 degree clockwise off the “OFF” position. All positions are ON positions except “OFF” in Fig. 1) in which the adjustable knob is at a substantially 1 degree angle relative to the Y-axis (vertical axis) in which the electrical power is provided to the heating elements; and a second closed (OFF) position in which the adjustable knob is at a substantially 359 (360) degree angle relative to the Y-axis in which the electrical power is not provided to the heating elements. Sekera further teaches wherein the electrical power increases linearly while the adjustable knob is rotated (from “LO” to “HI.” Fig. 1) and wherein the electrical power increases non-linearly while the adjustable knob is rotated (from “HI” to “OFF”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an infinite switch knob and indicator, as taught by Sekera, to the knob of Khan, in order to provide/indicate the operating condition of the system via the indicated novel and visual indicator structure (Col. 2, lines 61-68 and Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, the Applicant pointed to the round knob (24) that can be turned from 1 to 360 degrees. The Applicant fails to identify the drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections. The limitation in question is “the adjustable pressure knob biased towards a plurality of preset locations between 1 degree and 359 degrees relative to the Y-axis” as recited in claim 7, specifically, the terms “biased towards” indicate a potential energy or forces to move the knob, yet, the terms “preset locations,” understanding the claim as a whole, to mean a potential energy or forces to stop the knob. However, the drawings and the original disclosure failed to show how these functional limitations are achieved. Therefore, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference and/or the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights