DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8, 10-21 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.
Claims 1, 13 and 19 recite the limitation, “wherein a second configuration is more tilted than a first configuration relative to a horizontal surface.” This limitation is not clear as to whether “a first configuration” and “a second configuration” are the same as or different from “a first orientation” and “a second orientation.”
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the additive is sealed within a reservoir of the cap or the base and the post disrupts a seal when the post is coupled to the cap top to dispose the additive within the compartment.”
This limitation is unclear because claim 13 already recites that the post is protruding from the support surface of the base and is coupled to the cap top (see claim 13, line 13-15). Claim 13 also recites that the additive is within the compartment of the additive-release housing. In view of this, claim 15 is not clear as to how a post that is already coupled to the cap top can then disrupt an additive sealed within a reservoir of the base to dispose the additive within the compartment.
The above limitation is also unclear because it recites “when the post is coupled to the cap top,” however claim 13 does not recite a step of coupling the base and the cap together, but rather only recites, “a post protruding from the support surface and coupled to the cap top.”
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-18, 20 and 21 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichinger (US 6620444). The definition of “fill” has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Reichinger discloses a tilt-activated beverage container, comprising: a beverage container (see figure 5, item 13); an additive-release housing forming a compartment (see figure 1a, item 6), the additive-release housing disposed on or in an inner wall of the beverage container (see figure 5), wherein the additive-release housing comprises: a cap comprising a lip forming an inner diameter of the cap (see figure 1a and 2, item 1 and 9), wherein the lip extends away from a cap top (see figure 1a and 2 where item 9 extends away from a top of the cap.
Reichinger also teaches the additive release housing comprising a base (Figure 1a and 2, item 2) comprising: an annular rim (figure 2, item 5a) extending away from a support surface (2), the annular rim forming an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the cap (see figure 2, where the outer diameter of 5a is smaller than an inner diameter of 9), such that the annular rim fits within the lip (see figure 1a and 2, where the annular rim fits within the bounds of the lip 9); and a post (figure 1a, item 4) protruding from the support surface and configured to be coupled to the cap top (see figure 3a and 3b, item 12 and 13 coupling the cap to the post 4), wherein, when the post is coupled to the cap top (see figure 1a and 3a-3b), the lip 9 extends past an upper edge of the annular rim 5 and towards the support surface 2 to form a channel between an inner surface of the lip and an outer surface of the annular rim (the space between item 5a and item 9 is a channel); and an additive (see figure 1a, item 6 and 7, and column 5, lines 61-65) disposed within the compartment of the additive-release housing.
Reichinger teaches in figure 1a that there is a length of the channel and a width that is a distance between “an” outer surface of the annular rim and “an” inner surface of the cap top as shown by annotated figure 1a, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
292
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
433
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 differs from Reichinger in specifically reciting that “a length of the channel is greater than a width of the channel.”
It is noted however, that figure 5 of Reichinger teaches a channel where a length of the channel is greater than a width of the channel, wherein the width is a distance between an outer surface of the annular rim and an inner surface of the cap top, especially since the channel has a rectangular shape in the vertical direction. See annotated figure 5 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
255
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
221
555
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To therefore modify the figure 1a embodiment of Reichinger and extend the distance by which the lip extends past the upper edge of the annular rim and closer toward the support surface would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on other known configurations for such a rim. That is, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding the limitation of, wherein liquid of the beverage container extends only partially into the channel in a first orientation and the liquid fills the channel in a second orientation, wherein a second configuration is more tilted than a first configuration relative to a horizontal surface, it is noted that this is an intended use that the prior art would have been capable of, because this would also have been a function of the particular amount of liquid that was filled into the beverage container and the particular degree of tilting. For example, in a first orientation a small quantity of liquid could be placed within the container such that the channel is only partially filled when the container in an upright orientation or if the container was positioned with a sidewall against a horizontal surface and when the container is tilted the channel can be filled. It is also noted that the claim does not clearly limit the difference between the liquid “extends only partially” and “the liquid fills the channel.” That is, to fill the channel does not exclude partial filling versus completely filling, as evidenced by the plain meaning of “fills” which can mean to put into as much as can be held or conveniently contained, but can also mean “to raise the level of” or “supply as directed” or “a quantity that satisfies.” The claim also does not limit the particular tilted orientations.
Regarding claim 3, Reichinger teaches that the additive comprises a liquid additive or a solid additive (see column 2, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 4, the claim differs from Reichinger in specifically reciting wherein the lip extends past the annular rim an amount corresponding to at least 5% of a height of the annular rim. However, as shown in figure 1a, item 9 appears to extend past the annular rim 5a by at least double the width of 5a, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that item 9 would have extended past the rim by at least 5% of a height of the annular rim. Additionally, such a modification would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on the desired proportional dimensions of the lip compared to the annular rim.
Regarding claim 5, Reichinger teaches that the additive-release housing at least in part removably couples to the inner wall of the beverage container (see figure 5 and column 7, lines 41-42, 45-48 – a snap-fit would have been removable).
Regarding claim 6, Reichinger teaches that the base can be fixedly coupled to the inner wall of the beverage container and the cap is removable from the base (see column 7, lines 41-42 and 45-48 which teaches that the base part of the additive release housing can be snap-fit to the beverage container; and see figure 2 which teaches the cap removable from the base). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use this configuration as an obvious rearrangement of how Reichinger’s additive container is secured to the beverage container.
Regarding claim 7, as shown in figure 2, Reichinger discloses that the base is removable from the cap to permit the additive-release housing to be refilled with additional additive. This is an intended use that the prior art would have been capable of performing, especially as Reichinger teaches that the base and cap can be snap fit together, for example. (See also column 4, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 8, as shown in figure 5, Reichinger discloses that the additive-release housing is coupled to a bottom portion of the beverage container as shown in figure 5. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that when Reichinger’s container was filled some quantity of liquid and when the beverage container is in an upright orientation, that a top of the liquid would have been generally parallel to a plane of the cap top.
Regarding claim 10, Reichinger discloses that the first orientation can be a non-tilted orientation (see column 7, lines 45-58). Regarding the second orientation, Reichinger discloses that the container can be inverted upside down which will then cause the additive container to open and release the additive upon opening of the beverage container (see column 8, lines 2-26) and therefore teaches and suggests that the second orientation can have some degree of tilt. The claim is also not limiting as to what is a “non-tilted orientation.”
Regarding claim 11, Reichinger discloses that a top surface of the post couples to a mating feature of the cap top (see figure 3a-3b, item 12 and 13; column 6, lines 15-31)
Regarding claim 12, Reichinger discloses that the post couples to the cap top via an interference fit with a recess formed in the cap top (see figure 3a, where the cap top 12 has recesses to the left and right of 12, into which the post 4 couples; see column 6, lines 15-31 which discloses an interference fit).
Regarding claim 13, Reichinger discloses a method of providing tilt-activated beverage effects, comprising: providing a tilt-activated beverage container (see figure 5 which shows the beverage container), the tilt-activated beverage container comprising an inner wall comprising an additive-release housing forming a compartment (see figure 1a and column 7, lines 41-49).
Regarding the limitations of “wherein the additive-release housing comprises:
a cap comprising a lip forming an inner diameter of the cap, wherein the lip extends away from a cap top;
a base comprising:
an annular rim extending away from a support surface, the annular rim forming an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the cap such that the annular rim fits within the lip; and
a post protruding from the support surface and coupled to the cap top, wherein, when the post is coupled to the cap top, the lip extends past an upper edge of the annular rim and towards the support surface to form a channel between an inner surface of the lip and an outer surface of the annular rim wherein a length of the channel is greater than a width of the channel, wherein the width is a distance between an outer surface of the annular rim and an inner surface of the cap top; and
providing an additive disposed within the compartment, wherein liquid of the beverage container extends only partially into the channel in a first orientation of the beverage container and the liquid fills the channel in a second orientation, wherein a second configuration is more tilted than a first configuration relative to a horizontal surface” Reichinger is seen to teach these limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Reichinger discloses that the additive has been provided in the base and coupling the base and the cap together via the post (see at least, column 7, lines 27-40)
Regarding claim 16, Reichinger discloses coupling the additive-release housing to the inner wall via complementary mating features (see column 7, lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 18, Reichinger discloses filling the tilt-activated beverage container with the liquid (see column 7, line 49).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichinger (US 6620444) in view of Ullmann (US 20080245801) and Giuliano (US 20180086519).
Regarding claim 2, the claim differs from Reichinger in specifically reciting, “wherein a width of the channel formed by a gap between the inner surface of the lip and the outer surface of the annular rim is 2-5mm.”
However, the claims do not provide any specificity as to any particular function of said gap and therefore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). It is further noted that Ullmann teaches an additive release housing (see figure 2 and the abstract), where the housing comprises a compartment (see figure 2, item 1) and where the cover (figure 2, item 3) has a lip that has an inner diameter that is greater than an outer diameter of the rim of the compartment 1 (see figure 2, where the lip near item 5 is greater than the outer diameter of the rim at 1). Ullmann further teaches that there is a channel formed there-between, which has a distance that can vary (that is, the distance d2-d1; see figure 1A).
Giuliano also teaches that there is a cap defined by 11 and 39 (see figure 3 and paragraph 58), and where additive housing comprises a base with a support surface that has an annular rim (see figure 3, item 103) and where a diameter of an outer surface of 103 would have been smaller than a diameter of an inner surface of the cap 39, such as at 81 as shown in figure 4a. Giuliano is also teaching that the degree to which the cap lip extends past the annular rim, to firm a channel there-between can vary.
To therefore modify Reichinger who is also not limiting regarding the particular size of the channel defined by 5a and item 9 as shown in figure 2, would have been an obvious change of proportions which would have been an obvious matter of design, and based on factors such as a desirable size for the particular additive releasing housing.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Reichinger (US6620444) in view of Casey (US 20160270602) and Love (US 20180093803)
Regarding claim 15, Reichinger teaches that the additive release housing can comprise two parts of which one can be filled with the flavoring followed by connecting both parts together (see column 7, lines 33-40).
Claim 15 differs from Reichinger in specifically reciting, wherein the additive is sealed within a reservoir of the cap or the base and the post disrupts a seal when the post is coupled to the cap top to dispose the additive within the compartment.
Casey discloses in figure 10 that the additive is sealed within a reservoir of the base in light of the releasable liner 25 (see paragraph 31). The post is seen to “disrupt” a seal “when” the post is coupled to the cap top, since the coupling of the cap 231 to the post requires for the removal of the seal (see paragraph 32).
Love teaches an additive housing (see figure 9, item 66 that can be coupled to a cap (figure 9, item 62, 69) and which has a barrier wall (figure 9, item 64) that is peelable (see paragraph 17, last sentence) for allowing the contents from the additive housing to be dispensed (see paragraph 36). Using this concept with figure 10, for example, would have required de-coupling the additive housing at 89/90 to remove a barrier seal with subsequent reassembly to recouple part 81 with part 82.
To therefore modify Reichinger and to provide a base filled with the flavoring additive and that is sealed and to subsequently disrupt the seal when coupling the base and the cap together such that the post is coupled to the cap top, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of desirably providing pre-filled additive housings that can be subsequently assembled together at another location, for example.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichinger (US6620444) in view of Anderson (US 20080202950) and Wiseburgh (US 20200165052).
Claim 17 differs from Reichinger in specifically reciting uncoupling the additive-release housing from the inner wall and coupling a new housing comprising a different additive.
It is noted however, that Reichinger is not limiting as to the particular configuration for where the additive housing has been affixed.
Furthermore, Reichinger teaches any type of flavoring can be within the additive housing (see column 2, lines 50-52).
In this regard, Anderson teaches removal of an additive housing from a bottom of a container (see figure 12 and paragraph 56, item 108; see paragraph 50). Wiseburgh teaches a multi-use bottle (see paragraph 7) and which bottle can comprise a carbonated liquid (see the abstract) and where the bottle can have an additive inserted therein for flavoring of the beverage (see paragraph 22 and 23). Since Wiseburgh teaches a multi-use bottle, for the purpose of being able to provide various flavors to the carbonated beverage (see paragraph 7), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Wiseburgh is teaching and suggesting removal of the additive housing and “coupling a new housing comprising a different additive.”
To modify Reichinger, who is not limiting as to the particular type of beverage container, and to remove the additive housing from the inner wall and couple a new housing comprising a different additive would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of reusing Reichinger’s container as well as for providing additional flavoring or additives to Reichinger’s beverage.
It is noted that the claim limitation, “coupling a new housing comprising a different additive” does not limit the particular housing to be the same structure as the recited “additive release housing” and therefore can be any type of housing coupled in any manner. The claim also does not specify what the additive in the new housing is different from.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichinger (US6620444) in view of Wiseburgh (US 20200165052) and in further view of Casey (US 20090065379). The definition of “fill” has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 19, Reichinger teaches a tilt-activated beverage container system, comprising: a tilt-activated beverage container, the tilt-activated beverage container comprising an inner wall comprising at least one mating feature configured to receive an additive-release housing, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
Reichinger also teaches an additive-release housing comprising: a cap comprising a lip forming an inner diameter of the cap, wherein the lip extends away from a cap top; a base comprising: an annular rim extending away from a support surface, the annular rim forming an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the cap such that the annular rim fits within the lip; a post protruding from the support surface and coupled to the cap top, wherein, when the post is coupled to the cap top, the lip extends past an upper edge of the annular rim and towards the support surface to form a channel between an inner surface of the lip and an outer surface of the annular rim, wherein a length of the channel is greater than a width of the channel, wherein the width is a distance between an outer surface of the annular rim and an inner surface of the cap top; and an additive disposed within a compartment formed by the additive-release housing, wherein liquid extends only partially into the channel in a first orientation and liquid fills the channel in a second orientation, wherein a second configuration is more tilted than a first configuration relative to a horizontal surface, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19 differs from Reichinger in specifically reciting a system which also a plurality of additive-release housings, each wherein each individual additive-release housing of the plurality of additive-release housings is configured to couple to the inner wall via the at least one mating feature.
However, Wiseburgh teaches a multi-use bottle (see paragraph 7) and which bottle can comprise a carbonated liquid (see the abstract) and where the bottle can have an additive inserted therein for flavoring of the beverage (see paragraph 22 and 23). Since Wiseburgh teaches a multi-use bottle, for the purpose of being able to provide various flavors to the carbonated beverage (see paragraph 7) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Wiseburgh is teaching and suggesting a plurality of additive release housings.
Casey379 discloses complementary mating features between an additive release housing and an inner wall of a container, such as a rib and indentation combination (see figure 4B, item 400,402 and paragraph 33), present near an opening in the container.
Casey379 also discloses a plurality of additive-release housings (see figure 10, item 1002), which can be useful so that a user can use the main container multiple times by replacing the additive release housing with one of the other additive release housings of the plurality (see paragraph 39).
To therefore modify Reichinger and provide a plurality of additive release housings that can be affixed to the at least one mating feature in view of Wiseburgh and Casey379’s teachings would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to provide Reichinger’s container with the ability to reuse the container and subsequently provide another flavor to the beverage, or to combine additive flavorings for the same beverage.
Regarding claim 20, since Casey379 discloses a plurality of additive release housings (figure 10) and since Wiseburgh discloses multiple types of flavorings and re-use of the beverage container, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a different type of additive in the plurality of additive release housings as an obvious matter of design, for the purpose of providing multiple flavorings with the beverage system.
Regarding claim 21, while Casey379 does not specifically discuss that the at least one mating feature comprises a plurality of mating features, but rather only discusses an indentation 402 and protrusion 400 (see paragraph 33), to modify the combination and provide an additional indentation and protrusion would have been an obvious duplication of parts for providing the same purpose of securing the additive release housing within the container and therefore, is not seen to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Additionally, Wiseburgh teaches that there can be multiple mating features, such as a plurality of connecting pins (see figure 1, item 106) that can be used to engage with bayonet fittings (see paragraph 51) and where each pin and bayonet fitting can be construed as a single mating feature such that Wiseburgh’s disclosure of at least two bayonet fittings reads on the limitation of “a plurality of mating features distributed about the inner wall.” That is, this reads on being distributed about the same region of the inner wall. While Wiseburgh might not be discussing these mating features with respect to the additive housing and the inner wall of the container, since Casey379 already teaches a similar concept with one mating feature, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Reichinger to have used a plurality of mating features, as an obvious duplication of a mating feature, for the same purpose of securing the additive housing to the inner wall.
Claim 21 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 19 above, which relies on Reichinger (US6620444) as the primary reference, and in further view of Haermeyer (US 20040081728).
Further regarding claim 21, it is noted that Haermeyer teaches multiple mating features for securing an additive housing to a container (see figure 5a-5c and paragraph 24-25).
Each of Haermeyer’s recess and protrusion combinations can be construed as a single mating feature such that Haermeyer’s disclosure of multiple engaging feet reads on the limitation of “a plurality of mating features distributed about the inner wall.” That is, this reads on being distributed about the same region of the inner wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Reichinger to have used a plurality of mating features, as an obvious substation of one type of mating feature for another, for the same purpose of securing the additive housing to the inner wall.
Claim 21 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 19 above, which relies on Reichinger (US6620444) as the primary reference, and in further view of Karabinis (US 8394439).
Further regarding claim 21, if it could have been construed that the claim differed combination as applied to claim 21 in specifically reciting, “wherein the at least one mating feature comprises a plurality of mating features distributed about the inner wall,” then it is noted that Karabinis teaches that it has been desirable to provide more than one sub-container as part of a beverage container for the purpose of delivering additives to the beverage (see the abstract and figure 5).
Since Reichinger teaches snap-fit mating features for securing the additive housing to the inner wall of the container, to modify Reichinger and to provide multiple snap-fit mating features would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to release multiple flavoring additives into Reichinger’s beverage, as taught by Karabinis.
Response to Arguments
On pages 11-12 of the response, regarding Reichinger, Applicant urges that the mere disclosure that the container system opens to mix flavors inside the inner compartment cannot be considered analogous to an additive disposed within the compartment of the additive release housing, wherein liquid of the beverage container extends only partially into the channel in a first orientation of the beverage container and liquid fills the channel in a second orientation, wherein a second orientation is more tilted than a first orientation relative to a horizontal surface.”
These arguments have been considered but are not seen to be sufficient in light of the rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is further noted that regarding figure 3a of Reichinger, the rejection is only relying on this structure to show how a post as part of a base can couple with a cap. Furthermore, it is noted that the limitations directed to liquid extending only partially into the channel in a first orientation and the liquid fills the channel in a second orientation, which second configuration is more tilted than a first configuration relative to a horizontal surface is seen to be an intended use limitation because the claims do not positively recite liquid in the container or limit the amount of liquid in the beverage container and also do not limit what it means for the liquid to “fill” the channel in a second orientation. It is additionally noted that the claims also do not recite that the channel extends from an interior of the compartment of the additive release housing to an exterior, such that Reichinger’s structure can be construed as the claimed channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5950819 discloses an additive release housing comprising a cap with a lip (figure 2, item 3) extending away from a cap top, a base with a rim (20) and a post (7) extending away from a base and a channel between the cap lip (3) and the annular rim (20) that has a length greater than a width.
US 6540070 discloses an additive release housing comprising a cap with a lip (figure 5, item 26) extending away from a cap top, a base with a rim (figure 5, item 34) and a post (56) extending away from a base and a channel (38) between the cap lip (26) and the annular rim (34) that has a length greater than a width.
US 7588142 discloses an additive release housing comprising a cap with a lip (figure 3 and 4) extending away from a cap top (figure 3, item 11), a base with a rim (figure 4, item 15) and a post (figure 3, item 40,42) extending away from a base (16) and a channel (figure 4, item 15) between the cap lip and the annular rim that has a length greater than a width.
KR20160024545 discloses an additive release housing comprising a cap with a lip (figure 1, item 137) extending away from a cap top (figure 1, item 130), a base (113) with a rim (figure 1, item next to item 135 and below 130) extending away from a base (16) and a channel between the cap lip and the annular rim that has a length greater than a width (see the channel extending between 137 and the rim of 113.
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792