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 12/22/2025. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“dispensing assembly” in claims 4, 11, and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“dispensing assembly” includes a discharging outlet for discharging ice pieces, an actuating mechanism such as a paddle, or sensor, or button, and an ice chute as described in paragraphs [0028] and [0047] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR20200086424A, herein after referred to as Ko) in view of Naik et al. (US 20240328696 A1, herein after referred to as Naik).
Regarding claim 1, Ko teaches a method of operating (the method illustrated in Fig. 8) an ice maker assembly (Fig. 1b) for a refrigerator appliance (Fig. 1a), the method comprising: detecting an ice-usage event (the detection of the ice level inside ice storage unit 120 at step S801 Fig. 8); detecting a potential ice clumping state (step S802 and step S808 Fig. 8) following detecting the ice-usage event (Fig. 8); initiating an ice agitator cycle (steps S803, S804, and S805 Fig. 8) in response to detecting the potential ice clumping event (Fig. 8).
Ko teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising providing a user notification in response to initiating the ice agitator cycle”.
However, Naik teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 7 corresponds to the method of Ko) comprising providing a user notification (block 166 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0048]) in response to initiating an ice agitator cycle (the disclosed “automatically agitate the ice” in paragraph [0048] corresponds to the ice agitator cycle of Ko) to prevent any risk of breakage of the ice dispensing mechanism (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Ko to include “the method comprising providing a user notification in response to initiating the ice agitator cycle” in view of the teachings of Naik to prevent any risk of breakage of the ice dispensing mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises sensing (paragraphs [0097] and [0098] with step S801 Fig. 8 of Ko), with a feeler arm (ice detection lever 620 Fig. 6 of Ko), a change (paragraphs [0097] and [0098] of Ko) in an ice storage level (corresponds to the ice level described in paragraphs [0097] and [0098] of Ko) of an ice storage bin (ice storage unit 120 Fig. 1b of Ko), wherein the change in the ice storage level indicates the ice-usage event (paragraphs [0097] and [0098] with step S801 Fig. 8 of Ko where a person skilled in the art would recognize that ice usage would result in a change in the ice level inside ice storage unit 120).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises sensing a freezer door of the refrigerator appliance is in an open position”.
However, a different embodiment of Naik teaches wherein detecting an ice-usage event (the disclosed “manual removal of ice” in paragraph [0054] corresponds to the ice-usage event of Ko) comprises sensing a freezer door (freezer compartment door 20 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0054]) of a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator 10 Fig. 1 corresponds to the refrigerator appliance of Ko) is in an open position (block 188 Fig. 8 and paragraph [0054]) to improve the ice clumping detection process (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method/apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises sensing a freezer door of the refrigerator appliance is in an open position” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Naik to improve the ice clumping detection process.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises dispensing ice pieces from an ice storage bin via a dispensing assembly”.
However, a different embodiment of Naik teaches wherein detecting an ice-usage event (the disclosed “ice dispense events” in paragraph [0054] corresponds to the ice-usage event of Ko) comprises dispensing ice pieces (ice 26 Fig. 2) from an ice storage bin (storage bin 28 Fig. 2) via a dispensing assembly (dispenser 54 Fig. 3) to improve the ice clumping detection process (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method/apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises dispensing ice pieces from an ice storage bin via a dispensing assembly” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Naik to improve the ice clumping detection process.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the user notification is provided on a remote user interface device (user device 60 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0048] of Naik) in response to the ice agitator cycle being initiated (paragraph [0048] of Naik).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the user notification is provided on a display of the refrigerator appliance (disclosed “refrigerator display” in paragraph [0048] of Naik) in response to the ice agitator cycle being initiated (paragraph [0048] of Naik).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein initiating the ice agitator cycle comprises driving a motor (auger motor 140 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0121] of Ko) to rotate an ice agitator (rotating body 150 Fig. 4a-c of Ko) positioned within an ice storage bin (ice storage unit 120 Fig. 1c of Ko) periodically (steps S803, S804, and S805 Fig. 8 of Ko).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator positioned within the ice storage bin periodically further comprises driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator positioned within the ice storage bin periodically in a clockwise (Fig. 4a of Ko) and anticlockwise motion (Fig. 4b of Ko).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator positioned within the ice storage bin periodically in the clockwise and anticlockwise motion comprises driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator in a first direction (paragraph [0123] of Ko) for a first predetermined amount (disclosed “first time” in paragraph [0123] of Ko) followed by driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator in a second direction (paragraph [0123] of Ko) for a second predetermined amount (disclosed “third time” in paragraph [0123] of Ko), and wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (Fig. 4a and 4b of Ko).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko and Naik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 10948227 B2, herein after referred to as Jeong).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: detecting an in-cycle ice-usage event following initiating the ice agitator cycle; and halting the ice agitator cycle following detecting the in-cycle ice-usage event”.
However, Jeong teaches further comprising: detecting an in-cycle ice-usage event (block 1520 Fig. 21 when the driving current is less than a reference value) following initiating an ice agitator cycle (block 1510 corresponds to the initiating of the ice agitator cycle of Ko); and halting the ice agitator cycle (block 1530 Fig. 21) following detecting the in-cycle ice-usage event (Fig. 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method/apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising: detecting an in-cycle ice-usage event following initiating the ice agitator cycle; and halting the ice agitator cycle following detecting the in-cycle ice-usage event” in view of the teachings of Jeong to prevent damaging the agitator.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, in view of Jeong et al. (US 20170167780 A1, herein after referred to as Jeong’80), and in further view of Naik.
Regarding claim 11, Ko teaches a refrigerator appliance (Fig. 1a) comprising: a cabinet (main body 10 Fig. 1a) defining a freezer chamber (freezer compartment 12 Fig. 1a) and a fresh food chamber (refrigerator compartment 11 Fig. 1a); a freezer door (Fig. 1a) attached to the cabinet (Fig. 1a), the freezer door movable between a closed position (Fig. 1a) and an open position (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the doors of freezer compartment 12 can be opened to allow access to the items stored therein), wherein in the closed position the freezer chamber is enclosed by the freezer door (Fig. 1a), and wherein in the open position the freezer chamber is accessible (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the doors of freezer compartment 12 can be opened to allow access to the items stored therein); a refrigerator door (Fig. 1a) attached to the cabinet (Fig. 1a), the refrigerator door movable between a closed position (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the doors of refrigerator compartment 11 can be closed to enclose to the items stored therein) and an open position (Fig. 1a), wherein in the closed position of the refrigerator door the fresh food chamber is enclosed by the refrigerator door (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the doors of refrigerator compartment 11 can be closed to enclose to the items stored therein), and wherein in the open position of the refrigerator door the fresh food chamber is accessible (Fig. 1a); an ice maker assembly (Fig. 1b) comprising an ice storage bin (ice storage unit 120 Fig. 1b), a feeler arm (ice detection lever 620 Fig. 6), an ice agitator (rotating body 150 Fig. 4a-c), and a dispensing assembly (disclosed “lever input” in paragraph [0003] and discharge port 121 Fig. 1c); and a controller (processor 170 Fig. 3) operable for: detecting an ice-usage event (the detection of the ice level inside ice storage unit 120 at step S801 Fig. 8); detecting a potential ice clumping state (step S802 and step S808 Fig. 8) following detecting the ice-usage event (Fig. 8); initiating an ice agitator cycle (steps S803, S804, and S805 Fig. 8) in response to detecting the potential ice clumping event (Fig. 8).
Ko teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the ice maker assembly mounted to the freezer door”.
However, Jeong’80 teaches an ice maker assembly (second dispenser 120 and ice making unit 80 correspond to the assembly of Ko) mounted to a freezer door (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0111] where first lower door 42 corresponds to the door of Ko) to maximize the space utilization of the fresh food chamber (paragraph [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Ko to include “the ice maker assembly mounted to the freezer door” in view of the teachings of Jeong’80 to maximize the space utilization of the fresh food chamber.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller operable for providing a user notification in response to initiating the ice agitator cycle”.
However, Naik teaches a controller (controller 40 Fig. 3 corresponds to the controller of Ko) operable for providing a user notification (block 166 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0048]) in response to initiating an ice agitator cycle (the disclosed “automatically agitate the ice” in paragraph [0048] corresponds to the ice agitator cycle of Ko) to prevent any risk of breakage of the ice dispensing mechanism (paragraph [0048]).
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 “the controller operable for providing a user notification in response to initiating the ice agitator cycle” in view of the teachings of Naik to prevent any risk of breakage of the ice dispensing mechanism.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises sensing (paragraphs [0097] and [0098] with step S801 Fig. 8 of Ko), with the feeler arm, a change (paragraphs [0097] and [0098] of Ko) in an ice storage level of the ice storage bin (corresponds to the ice level inside ice storage unit 120 as described in paragraphs [0097] and [0098] of Ko), wherein the change in the ice storage level indicates the ice-usage event (paragraphs [0097] and [0098] with step S801 Fig. 8 of Ko where a person skilled in the art would recognize that ice usage would result in a change in the ice level inside ice storage unit 120).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises sensing a freezer door of the refrigerator appliance is in an open position”.
However, a different embodiment of Naik teaches wherein detecting an ice-usage event (the disclosed “manual removal of ice” in paragraph [0054] corresponds to the ice-usage event of Ko) comprises sensing a freezer door (freezer compartment door 20 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0054]) of a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator 10 Fig. 1 corresponds to the refrigerator appliance of Ko) is in an open position (block 188 Fig. 8 and paragraph [0054]) to improve the ice clumping detection process (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method/apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises sensing a freezer door of the refrigerator appliance is in an open position” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Naik to improve the ice clumping detection process.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises dispensing ice pieces from an ice storage bin via a dispensing assembly”.
However, a different embodiment of Naik teaches wherein detecting an ice-usage event (the disclosed “ice dispense events” in paragraph [0054] corresponds to the ice-usage event of Ko) comprises dispensing ice pieces (ice 26 Fig. 2) from an ice storage bin (storage bin 28 Fig. 2) via a dispensing assembly (dispenser 54 Fig. 3) to improve the ice clumping detection process (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method/apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein detecting the ice-usage event comprises dispensing ice pieces from an ice storage bin via a dispensing assembly” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Naik to improve the ice clumping detection process.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the user notification is provided on a remote user interface device (user device 60 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0048] of Naik) in response to the ice agitator cycle being initiated (paragraph [0048] of Naik).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the user notification is provided on a display of the refrigerator appliance (disclosed “refrigerator display” in paragraph [0048] of Naik) in response to the ice agitator cycle being initiated (paragraph [0048] of Naik).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein initiating the ice agitator cycle comprises driving a motor (auger motor 140 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0121] of Ko) to rotate an ice agitator (rotating body 150 Fig. 4a-c of Ko) positioned within an ice storage bin (ice storage unit 120 Fig. 1c of Ko) periodically (steps S803, S804, and S805 Fig. 8 of Ko).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator positioned within the ice storage bin periodically further comprises driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator positioned within the ice storage bin periodically in a clockwise (Fig. 4a of Ko) and anticlockwise motion (Fig. 4b of Ko).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator positioned within the ice storage bin periodically in the clockwise and anticlockwise motion comprises driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator in a first direction (paragraph [0123] of Ko) for a first predetermined amount (disclosed “first time” in paragraph [0123] of Ko) followed by driving the motor to rotate the ice agitator in a second direction (paragraph [0123] of Ko) for a second predetermined amount (disclosed “third time” in paragraph [0123] of Ko), and wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (Fig. 4a and 4b of Ko).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, Jeong’’80, and Naik as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jeong.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: detecting an in-cycle ice-usage event following initiating the ice agitator cycle; and halting the ice agitator cycle following detecting the in-cycle ice-usage event”.
However, Jeong teaches further comprising: detecting an in-cycle ice-usage event (block 1520 Fig. 21 when the driving current is less than a reference value) following initiating an ice agitator cycle (block 1510 corresponds to the initiating of the ice agitator cycle of Ko); and halting the ice agitator cycle (block 1530 Fig. 21) following detecting the in-cycle ice-usage event (Fig. 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method/apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising: detecting an in-cycle ice-usage event following initiating the ice agitator cycle; and halting the ice agitator cycle following detecting the in-cycle ice-usage event” in view of the teachings of Jeong to prevent damaging the agitator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 that Ko does not disclose “detecting an ice-usage event” as disclosed by independent claims 1 and 11, Examiner disagrees.
It is the Examiner’s position that the full ice level detection step (step S801 Fig. 8) disclosed by Ko is in essence the detection of an “ice-usage event” since ice consumption from a user would result in the ice level being less than full in ice storage unit 120 (Fig. 1b).
Furthermore, the Examiner’s position is corroborated by the Applicant’s disclosure in paragraph [0056] which states that “Ice-usage events may be events or operations that correspond to the removal (e.g., physical removal or removal via a dispensing assembly) of ice pieces from an ice storage bin, e.g., ice storage bin assembly 152, of the refrigerator appliance. For example, step 410 of detecting an ice-usage event may include sensing ice pieces within an ice storage bin at a feeler arm, e.g., the feeler arm 260, disposed above at least a portion of the ice storage bin. As described in more detail above, the feeler arm, e.g., the feeler arm 260, may be utilized to sense when an ice storage level of the ice storage bin has changed. In this regard, when the feeler arm 260 senses a change in the ice storage level of the ice storage bin (e.g., in response to receiving a signal corresponding to engagement between the feeler arm and a volume of ice), an ice-usage event may be detected”. In other words, Applicant is also defining the change in the ice level as an “ice-usage event’.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that Ko does not disclose “detecting a potential ice clumping state following detecting the ice-usage event” as disclosed by independent claims 1 and 11, Examiner disagrees.
As established above in the previous argument’s response, Ko teaches first detecting an ice-usage event (step S801 Fig. 8). Then based on whether the ice level is full or not in ice storage unit 120 (Fig. 1b), Ko teaches two different ways of determining a potential ice clumping state which are: step S802 Fig. 8 when ice storage unit 120 is full, and step S808 when ice storage unit 120 is not full.
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