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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/29/2026. The previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-18 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshikawa et al. (EP3800404A1, herein after referred to as Yoshikawa).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa teaches an outdoor unit (outdoor unit 10 Fig. 1) of an air conditioner (disclosed “split type heat pump” in paragraph [0037]), comprising: a case (casing 11 Fig. 4) that forms an outer appearance of the outdoor unit (Fig. 1); a barrier (partition wall 20 Fig. 1a) that divides an inner space of the case (inner space of casing 11 Fig. 1a) into a heat exchange space (fan chamber 22 Fig. 1a) and an electric space (machine chamber 21 Fig. 1a); a heat exchanger (heat source heat exchanger 30 Fig. 1a) disposed in the heat exchange space (Fig. 1a); a fan (fan 50 Fig. 1a) disposed in the heat exchange space (Fig. 1a); a compressor (disclosed “compressor” in paragraph [0043]) disposed in the electric space (paragraph [0043]); and a grille assembly (both front panels 100 Fig. 2a) detachably coupled to a front surface of the case (paragraph [0050] and Fig. 1), wherein the grille assembly includes: a first grille plate (grille portion 101 of lower front panel 100 Fig. 2) coupled to the front surface of the case corresponding to a front of the heat exchange space (front of fan chamber 22 Figs. 1-1a); a second grille plate (machine chamber portion 102 of lower front panel 100 Fig. 2) coupled to the front surface of the case corresponding to a front of the electric space (front of machine chamber 21 Figs. 1-1a); and a grille cover (top front panel 100 Fig. 2a) coupled to cover an upper portion of the first grille plate (Fig. 2a) and an upper portion of the second grille plate (Fig. 2a), wherein the case includes a top panel (top plate 14 Fig. 1) that forms an upper surface of the outdoor unit (Fig. 1), and wherein the grille cover is detachably disposed between the top panel and the upper portion of the first grille plate and the upper portion of the second grille plate (Figs. 2-2a and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa teaches wherein a plurality of hook holes (engagement members 120A-120B Fig. 4) is formed on the front surface of the case (Fig. 4), wherein at least one first hook (engaging members 110A-110B Fig. 2a) is formed on a rear surface of the first grille plate (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 2a) that is coupled to a first portion of the plurality of hook holes (paragraph [0054]), and wherein at least one second hook (engaging members 110A-110B Fig. 2a) is formed on a rear surface of the second grille plate (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 2a) that is coupled to a second portion of among the plurality of hook holes (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 2a and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the case further includes: a base panel (bottom plate 12 Fig. 4); a first front panel (bell mouth 18 Fig. 4) disposed on a front end portion of the base panel (Fig. 4) and forming a front surface of the heat exchange space (Fig. 4); and a second front panel (cover plate 17 Fig. 4) disposed on the front end portion of the base panel (Fig. 4) and forming a front surface of the electric space (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the first grille plate is configured to cover a front surface of the first front panel (bottom front surface of bell mouth 18 Figs. 1 and 2a), and wherein the second grille plate is configured to cover a front surface of the second front panel (bottom front surface of cover plate 17 Figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the fan is disposed at a front of the heat exchanger (Fig. 1a), and wherein the first grille plate is disposed at a front of the fan (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the case further includes an orifice (air flow opening 19 Fig. 4) formed in the first front panel, and wherein the fan is disposed at a rear of the orifice (Figs. 2a and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the first grille plate includes: a first plate (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) coupled to the front surface of the case (Fig. 1); a first cover portion (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) coupled to an upper end of the first plate (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa); and a first grille portion (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) provided on a front surface of the first plate (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa), and wherein the first grille portion is disposed in front of the fan (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
1153
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the first grille portion includes: a plurality of horizontal ribs (parallel horizontal ribs 104 Fig. 2) spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (Fig. 2); and a plurality of longitudinal ribs (vertical ribs 105 Fig. 2) that connects the plurality of horizontal ribs and spaced apart from each other (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the second grille plate includes: a second plate (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) coupled to the front surface of the case (Fig. 1); a second cover portion (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) coupled to an upper end of the second plate (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa); and a second grille portion (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) provided on a front surface of the second plate (Fig. 1), and wherein a front surface of the first grille portion (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa) and a front surface of the second grille portion (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa) are disposed on a same plane (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
545
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
331
1051
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikawa teaches wherein an upper surface of the first cover portion (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) and an upper surface of the second cover portion (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshikawa) are disposed on a same plane (Fig. 2), and wherein the grille cover is configured to cover the upper surface of the first cover portion and the upper surface of the second cover portion (Fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
1119
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hisataka et al. (JPH05133563A, herein after referred to as Hisataka).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a direction in which the at least one first hook is coupled to the first portion of the plurality of hook holes is opposite to a direction in which the at least one second hook is coupled to the second portion of the plurality of hook holes”.
However, Hisataka teaches wherein a direction (corresponds to the direction in which left protrusion 12 is coupled to left side plate 9 Figs. 1-2) in which at least one first hook (Figs. 1-2 where left protrusion 12 corresponds to the first hook of Yoshikawa) is coupled to a first portion of a plurality of hook holes (Figs. 1-2 where left cutout 10 corresponds to the first portion of the plurality of hook holes of Yoshikawa) is opposite to a direction (corresponds to the direction in which right protrusion 12 is coupled to right side plate 9 Figs. 1-2) in which at least one second hook (Figs. 1-2 where right protrusion 12 corresponds to the second hook of Yoshikawa) is coupled to a second portion of the plurality of hook holes (Figs. 1-2 where right cutout 10 corresponds to the second portion of the plurality of hook holes of Yoshikawa) to easily mount the front grille when subjected to space restrictions (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Yoshikawa to include “wherein a direction in which the at least one first hook is coupled to the first portion of the plurality of hook holes is opposite to a direction in which the at least one second hook is coupled to the second portion of the plurality of hook holes” in view of the teachings of Hisataka to easily mount the front grille when subjected to space restrictions.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20060130516 A1, herein after referred to as Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the grille cover includes: a front surface portion (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa) that forms a front surface thereof (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa); an upper surface portion (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa) that forms an upper surface thereof (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa); and side portions (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa) that form both sides thereof (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yoshikawa).
PNG
media_image5.png
316
1271
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yoshikawa teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the upper portion of each of the first grille plate and the second grille plate is inserted and accommodated inside of the grille cover”.
However, Sugiyama teaches wherein the upper portion of each of a first grille plate (see below annotated Fig. 9 of Sugiyama) and a second grille plate (see below annotated Fig. 9 of Sugiyama) is inserted and accommodated inside of a grille cover (Fig. 17A where top panel 600 corresponds to the grille cover of Yoshikawa) to prevent abnormal noise due to vibration when the fan is driven (paragraph [0118]).
PNG
media_image6.png
635
1016
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Yoshikawa to include “wherein an upper portion of each of the first grille plate and the second grille plate is inserted and accommodated inside of the grille cover” in view of the teachings of Sugiyama to prevent abnormal noise due to vibration when the fan is driven.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein rear (rear surface of top panel 600 Fig. 18 of Sugiyama) and bottom surfaces of the grille cover (bottom surface of top panel 600 Fig. 18 of Sugiyama) are open (Fig. 18 of Sugiyama where the rear surface of top panel 600 includes grille 601).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa and Sugiyama as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tanda et al. (JP6949228B2, herein after referred to as Tanda).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein at least one first coupling groove (insertion groove 560 Fig. 17A of Sugiyama) is formed on an upper surface of the first grille plate (Figs. 9 and 17A of Sugiyama), and wherein at least one coupling rib (reinforcing piece 610 Fig. 17A of Sugiyama) is formed on the grille cover (Fig. 17A of Sugiyama), which extends rearward from the front surface portion and is coupled to the at least one first coupling groove (Fig. 17A and paragraph [0119] of Sugiyama).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein at least one first coupling groove is formed on an upper surface of the second grille plate”.
However, Tanda teaches wherein at least one first coupling groove (recess 35 Fig. 18) is formed on an upper surface of a second grille plate (Figs. 2 and 18 where service panel 30 corresponds to the second grille plate of Yoshikawa) to easily and safely attach and detach the second grille plate (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein at least one first coupling groove is formed on an upper surface of the second grille plate” in view of the teachings of Tanda to easily and safely attach and detach the second grille plate.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one coupling rib (convex portion 25 Fig. 18 of Tanda corresponds to the coupling rib of Sugiyama) includes: a first rib (fitting surface 25a Fig. 18 of Tanda) that extends rearward from a rear surface of the front surface portion (Fig. 18 of Tanda where flange portion 22 corresponds to the front surface portion of Yoshikawa); and a second rib (guide portion 25y Fig. 18 of Tanda) that extends downward from an end portion of the first rib (Fig. 18 of Tanda), and wherein the second rib is engaged with an inside of the first coupling groove (Fig. 18 of Tanda).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa and Sugiyama as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tanda and Hayashi et al. (US 20190195529 A1, herein after referred to as Hayashi).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein at least one second coupling groove is formed on a side of the second grille plate, and wherein at least one coupling protrusion is formed on the grille cover, which extends inward from the side portions and is coupled to the at least one second coupling groove”.
However, Tanda teaches wherein at least one second coupling groove (concave portion 35 formed on side wall 33b Fig. 21) is formed on a side of a second grille plate (Fig. 21 where service panel 30 corresponds to the second grille plate of Yoshikawa), and wherein at least one coupling protrusion (convex portion 25 Fig. 22) is formed on a grille cover (Fig. 22 where top panel 20 corresponds to the grille cover of Yoshikawa), which extends inward from the side portion (Figs. 18 and 22) and is coupled to the at least one second coupling groove (Figs. 18 and 22) to easily and safely attach and detach the second grille plate (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein at least one second coupling groove is formed on a side of the second grille plate, and wherein at least one coupling protrusion is formed on the grille cover, which extends inward from the side portion and is coupled to the at least one second coupling groove” in view of the teachings of Tanda to easily and safely attach and detach the second grille plate.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein at least one second coupling groove is formed on a side of the first grille plate”.
However, Hayashi teaches wherein at least one second coupling groove (mounting part 8a Fig. 2B) is formed on a side of a first grille plate (Fig. 2B where L-shaped cover 8 corresponds to the first grille part of Yoshikawa) to connect the first grille plate to a plurality of panels (Fig. 2A and paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein at least one second coupling groove is formed on a side of the first grille plate” in view of the teachings of Hayashi to connect the first grille plate to a plurality of panels.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa, Sugiyama, Tanda, and Hayashi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (KR20010065316A).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one coupling protrusion includes: a first protrusion that extends from an inner surface of the side portions toward an inner center of the grille cover; and a second protrusion that extends from the inner surface of the side portions toward the inner center and spaced upward from the first protrusion”.
However, Kim teaches wherein at least one coupling protrusion (hook 121 Fig. 6 corresponds to the coupling protrusion of Tanda) includes: a first protrusion (side 121b Fig. 6) that extends from an inner surface of a side portion (Fig. 3 where side panel 120 corresponds to the side portion of Yoshikawa) toward an inner center of a grille cover (Fig. 1 where main body 100 corresponds to the grille cover of Yoshikawa); and a second protrusion (side 121b Fig. 6) that extends from the inner surface of the side portion toward the inner center (Figs. 1 and 6) and spaced upward from the first protrusion (Fig. 6) to allow for a smooth insertion of the coupling protrusion (page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the at least one coupling protrusion includes: a first protrusion that extends from an inner surface of the side portion toward an inner center of the grille cover; and a second protrusion that extends from the inner surface of the side portion toward the inner center and spaced upward from the first protrusion” in view of the teachings of Kim to allow for a smooth insertion of the coupling protrusion.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa and Sugiyama as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamada (JP2004150739A).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein an insertion groove is formed at a front end portion of each of the first grille plate and the second grille plate, and wherein an insertion portion is formed in the grille cover, which extends rearward from a lower end of a front surface portion thereof and is coupled to the insertion grooves”.
However, Yamada teaches wherein an insertion groove (engaging projections 15 Fig. 1) is formed at a front end portion of each of a first grille plate (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yamada) and a second grille plate (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yamada), and wherein an insertion portion (mounting operation portion 21 Fig. 6) is formed in a grille cover (Fig. 6 where top panel 20 corresponds to the grille cover of Yoshikawa), which extends rearward from a lower end (lower end of top panel 20Figs. 9 and 11) of a front surface portion thereof (front surface of top panel 20Figs. 9 and 11) and is coupled to the insertion grooves (Fig. 9) to provide a stable attachment (Background section).
PNG
media_image7.png
620
974
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein an insertion groove is formed at a front end portion of each of the first grille plate and the second grille plate, and wherein an insertion portion is formed in the grille cover, which extends rearward from a lower end of a front surface portion thereof and is coupled to the insertion grooves” in view of the teachings of Yamada to provide a stable attachment.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Yamada.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshikawa teaches an outdoor unit (outdoor unit 10 Fig. 1) of an air conditioner (disclosed “split type heat pump” in paragraph [0037]), comprising: a case (casing 11 Fig. 4) that forms an outer appearance of the outdoor unit (Fig. 1); a barrier (partition wall 20 Fig. 1a) that divides an inner space of the case (inner space of casing 11 Fig. 1a) into a heat exchange space (fan chamber 22 Fig. 1a) and an electric space (machine chamber 21 Fig. 1a); a heat exchanger (heat source heat exchanger 30 Fig. 1a) disposed in the heat exchange space (Fig. 1a); a fan (fan 50 Fig. 1a) disposed in the heat exchange space (Fig. 1a); a compressor (disclosed “compressor” in paragraph [0043]) disposed in the electric space (paragraph [0043]); and a grille assembly (front panels 100 Fig. 2a) detachably coupled to a front surface of the case (paragraph [0050] and Fig. 1), wherein the grille assembly includes: a first grille plate (grille portion 101 of lower front panel 100 Fig. 2) coupled to the front surface of the case corresponding to a front of the heat exchange space (front of fan chamber 22 Figs. 1-1a); a second grille plate (machine chamber portion 102 of lower front panel 100 Fig. 2) coupled to the front surface of the case corresponding to a front of the electric space (front of machine chamber 21 Figs. 1-1a); and a grille cover (top front panel 100 Fig. 2a) coupled to cover an upper portion of the first grille plate (Fig. 2a) and an upper portion of the second grille plate (Fig. 2a).
Yoshikawa teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein an insertion groove is formed at a front end portion of each of the first grille plate and the second grille plate, and wherein an insertion portion is formed in the grille cover, which extends rearward from a lower end of a front surface portion thereof and is coupled to the insertion grooves”.
However, Yamada teaches wherein an insertion groove (engaging projections 15 Fig. 1) is formed at a front end portion of each of a first grille plate (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yamada) and a second grille plate (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Yamada), and wherein an insertion portion (mounting operation portion 21 Fig. 6) is formed in a grille cover (Fig. 6 where top panel 20 corresponds to the grille cover of Yoshikawa), which extends rearward from a lower end (lower end of top panel 20Figs. 9 and 11) of a front surface portion thereof (front surface of top panel 20Figs. 9 and 11) and is coupled to the insertion grooves (Fig. 9) to provide a stable attachment (Background section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Yoshikawa to include “wherein an insertion groove is formed at a front end portion of each of the first grille plate and the second grille plate, and wherein an insertion portion is formed in the grille cover, which extends rearward from a lower end of a front surface portion thereof and is coupled to the insertion grooves” in view of the teachings of Yamada to provide a stable attachment.
PNG
media_image7.png
620
974
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the case includes: a base panel (bottom plate 12 Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa); a first front panel (bell mouth 18 Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa) disposed on a front end portion of the base panel (Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa) and forming a front surface of the heat exchange space (Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa); and a second front panel (cover plate 17 Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa) disposed on the front end portion of the base panel (Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa) and forming a front surface of the electric space (Fig. 4 of Yoshikawa), wherein the first grille plate is configured to cover a front surface of the first front panel (bottom front surface of bell mouth 18 Figs. 1 and 2a of Yoshikawa), and wherein the second grille plate is configured to cover a front surface of the second front panel (bottom front surface of cover plate 17 Figs. 1 and 2a of Yoshikawa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 that Yoshikawa does not teach or suggest “a grille cover coupled to cover an upper portion of the first grille plate and an upper portion of the second grille plate” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejection of claim 1 is repeated below along with annotated Fig. 2a of Yoshikawa:
Yoshikawa teaches a grille assembly (both front panels 100 Fig. 2a) detachably coupled to a front surface of the case (paragraph [0050] and Fig. 1), wherein the grille assembly includes: a first grille plate (grille portion 101 of lower front panel 100 Fig. 2); a second grille plate (machine chamber portion 102 of lower front panel 100 Fig. 2); and a grille cover (top front panel 100 Fig. 2a) coupled to cover an upper portion of the first grille plate (Fig. 2a) and an upper portion of the second grille plate (Fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image8.png
784
842
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights