DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended. By virtue of dependency, the depending claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Takahashi et al. (JPH10174556 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Takahashi.”
Regarding Claim 1: Schroeder teaches an ice dispenser (title, 10) for storing (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], via 62) and dispensing ice (via 29), the ice dispenser (via 29) comprising: a holding bin (62) extending longitudinally between a first side and a second side, transversely between a third side and a fourth side (see Figure 4), and vertically between a top to a bottom (see Figure 4); a chute (24) configured to guide the ice from outside the holding bin (62, paragraph [0019]) into the holding bin (62, paragraph [0019]), wherein the chute (24) has an upper end and an opposite lower end, and wherein the upper end of the chute extends longitudinally farther than the first side of the holding bin from the second side of the holding bin (62, see Figure 4); and a spout (35) operatively coupled to the holding bin for dispensing ice from the holding bin (62, see Figure 4).
Schroeder fails to teach an interface comprising at least one of a display screen or controls, system electronics, power supplies, or control boards; the chute configured to guide the ice over the interface.
Takahashi teaches an interface (control panel with buttons to command the control board on base 26) comprising at least one of a display screen or controls (buttons and levers), system electronics, power supplies, or control boards; a chute (14) configured to guide ice over the interface (ice enters above over the top of plane of the interface, see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an interface comprising at least one of a display screen or controls, system electronics, power supplies, or control boards; the chute configured to guide the ice over the interface to the structure of Schroeder as taught by Takahashi in order to advantageously provide a control panel for users to control operation of the ice dispenser (see page 3 of machine translation of Takahashi).
When modified, the interface of Takahashi is placed under the chute of Schroeder on merchandiser 63.
Regarding Claim 2: Schroeder teaches further comprising a cold plate (18) positioned below the holding bin (62, see Figure 1), the cold plate (18) including one or more lines (21A, 21B, paragraph [0018]) configured to be cooled via the ice from the holding bin (62).
Regarding Claim 3: Schroeder teaches wherein the lower end of the chute (24) is positioned so as to be approximately vertically even with the top of the holding bin (62, see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4: Schroeder teaches wherein the chute (24) extends between the upper end and the lower end at an angle between 20 and 60 degrees (see Figure 7, comparable to Figure 2 of the instant application) relative to the bottom of the holding bin (62).
Regarding Claim 10: Schroeder teaches further comprising a sensor (paragraph [0031]) configured to determine a level of the ice within the holding bin (62).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Takahashi et al. (JPH10174556 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Takahashi,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (KR 20140013732 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 5: Schroder teaches further comprising a cover (65) that encloses the top of the holding bin (62).
Schroeder modified supra fails to teach the cover having a lid for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access the holding bin.
Young teaches a cover (H1A) having a lid (H1b) for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access a holding bin (contents held in box holding 220, 221, 240, 241, 210, 250, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cover having a lid for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access the holding bin to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Young in order to advantageously provide a service door to allow access to the interior to allow for service to the equipment, such as repairs to cleaning (see Young, page 6 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 6: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach wherein the lid is movable between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible, and wherein the lid is rotated between 45 and 90 degrees from the closed position to the open position.
Young teaches a lid (H1b) is movable between a closed position in which access to a holding bin (see Figure 5) is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible (see Figure 4), and wherein the lid is rotated between 45 and 90 degrees from the closed position to the open position (see Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the lid is movable between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible, and wherein the lid is rotated between 45 and 90 degrees from the closed position to the open position to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Young in order to advantageously provide a service door to allow access to the interior to allow for service to the equipment, such as repairs to cleaning (see Young, page 6 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 7: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach wherein the lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms that remain parallel to each other as the lid is moved between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible.
Young teaches a lid (H1b) lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms (see Figures 4-5) that remain parallel to each other as the lid is moved between a closed position in which access to a holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible (see Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms that remain parallel to each other as the lid is moved between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Young in order to advantageously provide a service door to allow access to the interior to allow for service to the equipment, such as repairs to cleaning (see Young, page 6 of the machine translation).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Takahashi et al. (JPH10174556 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Takahashi,” and Young (KR 20140013732 A, machine translation), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nagelkirk (4,320,852).
Regarding Claim 8: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach wherein the lid extends between a first end and a second end, wherein the lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms that each extend between a first end and a second end, and wherein the first ends of the hinge arms are pivotally coupled proximate the upper end of the chute and the second ends of the hinge arms are pivotally coupled to the lid proximate a midpoint of the lid between the first end and the second end thereof.
Nagelkirk teaches a lid (18) extends between a first end (see Figures 1 and 2) and a second end (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein the lid (18) is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms (32) that each extend between a first end and a second end (see Figures 1 and 2), and wherein first ends of the hinge arms (32) are pivotally coupled proximate an upper end of a container (12) and second ends of the hinge arms (32) are pivotally coupled to the lid (18) proximate a midpoint of the lid between the first end and the second end thereof (see Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the lid extends between a first end and a second end, wherein the lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms that each extend between a first end and a second end, and wherein the first ends of the hinge arms are pivotally coupled proximate the upper end of the chute and the second ends of the hinge arms are pivotally coupled to the lid proximate a midpoint of the lid between the first end and the second end thereof to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Nagelkirk in order to advantageously prevent excessive wear and tear on the hinges (see Nagelkirk, abstract).
Regarding Claim 9: Schroeder teaches further comprising a sensor (paragraph [0031]) configured to determine a level of the ice within the holding bin (62), wherein the sensor is hidden under the cover (65) and accessible by removal thereof (paragraph [0031]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Takahashi et al. (JPH10174556 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Takahashi,” as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hawkes et al. (US 2008/0282711 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hawkes.”
Regarding Claim 11: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach wherein the sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor and/or a radar sensor.
Hawkes teaches wherein a sensor (51) comprises an ultrasonic sensor (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor and/or a radar sensor to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Hawkes in order to advantageously provide known types of level sensors from a variety of available types of sensors (see Hawkes, paragraph [0039]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Takahashi et al. (JPH10174556 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Takahashi,” as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Newman et al. (5,829,257), hereafter referred to as “Newman.”
Regarding Claim 12: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach further comprising a controller and a light, the controller being operatively connected to both the sensor and the light, wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the light based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin.
Newman teaches a controller (134) and a light (242, Column 5, lines 35-42), the controller (134) being operatively connected to both a sensor (171) and the light (242, Column 5, lines 35-42), wherein the controller (134) is configured to compare a level of ice within a holding bin (170) to a threshold level and to control the light based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin (Column 5, lines 35-42, see Figure 3, step 316 bin not full harvest mode started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a controller and a light, the controller being operatively connected to both the sensor and the light, wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the light based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Newman in order to advantageously provide information to users (see Newman, Column 5, lines 35-42).
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Newman et al. (5,829,257), hereafter referred to as “Newman,” and Brill et al. (5,058,773), hereafter referred to as “Brill.”
Regarding Claim 13: Schroeder teaches an ice dispenser (title, 10) for storing (via 62) and dispensing ice (via 29), the ice dispenser (title, 10) comprising: a holding bin (62) configured for storing ice (paragraph [0031]); a spout (35) operatively coupled to the holding bin (62) for dispensing ice from the holding bin (paragraph [0021]); and a sensor (paragraph [0031]) configured to determine a level of the ice within the holding bin (paragraph [0031]).
Schroeder fails to teach a controller and an indicator configured to generate an indicator for a user, the controller being operatively coupled to the sensor and the indicator, wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the indicator based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate that the user needs to add additional ice into the holding bin.
Newman teaches a controller (134) and an indicator (242, Column 5, lines 29-34) configured to generate an indicator for a user (Column 5, lines 29-34), the controller (134) being operatively coupled to the sensor and the indicator (see Figure 2), wherein the controller (134) is configured to compare the level of the ice within a holding bin (170) to a threshold level and to control the indicator based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin (Column 5, lines 35-42, see Figure 3, step 316 bin not full harvest mode started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a controller and an indicator configured to generate an indicator for a user, the controller being operatively coupled to the sensor and the indicator, wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the indicator based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin to the structure of Schroeder as taught by Newman in order to advantageously provide information to users (see Newman, Column 5, lines 35-42).
Brill teaches a controller (control system, Column 7, lines 20-24) is configured to compare a level of ice within a holding bin (20) to a threshold level and to control an indicator (sensor 60) based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate that a user needs to add additional ice into the holding bin (via alarm to alert restaurant personnel ice is too low, Column 7, 3-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the indicator based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate that the user needs to add additional ice into the holding bin to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Brill in order to advantageously provide sufficient ice in the ice holding bin for dispensing (Column 7, lines 20-24 of Brill).
Regarding Claim 14: Schroeder teaches further comprising a cold plate (18) positioned below the holding bin (62, see Figure 1), the cold plate (18) including one or more beverage lines (21A, 21B, paragraph [0018]) configured to be cooled via the ice from the holding bin (62, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 16: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach wherein the indicator comprises a light emitting diode, and wherein the controller is configured to turn on the light when the level of the ice within the holding bin is below the threshold level.
Newman teaches wherein an indicator (242) comprises a light emitting diode (Column 5, lines 35-42), and wherein a controller (134) is configured to turn on the light (242) when a level of ice within a holding bin (170) is below a threshold level (Column 5, lines 35-42, see Figure 3, step 316 bin not full harvest mode started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the indicator comprises a light emitting diode, and wherein the controller is configured to turn on the light when the level of the ice within the holding bin is below the threshold level to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Newman in order to advantageously provide information to users (see Newman, Column 5, lines 35-42).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Newman et al. (5,829,257), hereafter referred to as “Newman,” and Brill et al. (5,058,773), hereafter referred to as “Brill,” as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hawkes et al. (US 2008/0282711 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hawkes.”
Regarding Claim 15: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach wherein the sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor.
Hawkes teaches wherein a sensor (51) comprises an ultrasonic sensor (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Hawkes in order to advantageously provide known types of level sensors from a variety of available types of sensors (see Hawkes, paragraph [0039]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Newman et al. (5,829,257), hereafter referred to as “Newman,” and Brill et al. (5,058,773), hereafter referred to as “Brill,” as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Young (KR 20140013732 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 17: Schroeder teaches further comprising a cover (65) that encloses a top of the holding bin (62).
Schroeder modified supra fails to teach the cover having a lid for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access the holding bin.
Young teaches a cover (H1A) having a lid (H1b) for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access a holding bin (contents held in box holding 220, 221, 240, 241, 210, 250, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cover having a lid for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access the holding bin to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Young in order to advantageously provide a service door to allow access to the interior to allow for service to the equipment, such as repairs to cleaning (see Young, page 6 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 18: Schroeder teaches wherein the sensor (paragraph [0031]) is hidden under the cover (65) and accessible by removal thereof (paragraph [0031]).
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Newman et al. (5,829,257), hereafter referred to as “Newman,” and Brill et al. (5,058,773), hereafter referred to as “Brill,” as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sadinski et al. (US 2018/0094984 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sadinski.”
Regarding Claim 19: Schroeder modified supra fails to teach further comprising a wireless transmitter operatively coupled to the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the wireless transmitter to send a signal receivable by an external device when additional ice is needed in the holding bin.
Sadinski teaches a wireless transmitter (129, paragraph [0048]) operatively coupled to a controller (125, 127), wherein the controller (125, 127) is further configured to cause the wireless transmitter (129) to send a signal receivable by an external device (140, 150) when additional ice (paragraph [0005]) is needed in a holding bin (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a wireless transmitter operatively coupled to the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the wireless transmitter to send a signal receivable by an external device when additional ice is needed in the holding bin to the structure of Schroder modified supra as taught by Sadinski in order to advantageously provide the status of the ice bins to a user in a remote location (see Sadinski, abstract, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (EP 1291315 A2), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of Newman et al. (5,829,257), hereafter referred to as “Newman,” Young (KR 20140013732 A, machine translation), and Takahashi et al. (JPH10174556 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Takahashi.”
Regarding Claim 20: Schroeder teaches an ice dispenser (title, 10) for storing and dispensing ice (paragraphs [0010]-[0011]), the ice dispenser (10) comprising: a holding bin (62) extending longitudinally between a first side and a second side, transversely between a third side and a fourth side (see Figures 2 and 4), and vertically between a top to a bottom (see Figures 2 and 4); a chute (24) configured to guide the ice from outside the holding bin (62) into the holding bin (paragraph [0019]), wherein the chute has an upper end and an opposite lower end, and wherein the upper end of the chute (24) extends longitudinally farther than the first side of the holding bin from the second side of the holding bin (see Figure 4); a cold plate (18) positioned below the holding bin (62), the cold plate including a beverage line (21A, 21B, paragraph [0018]) configured to be cooled via the ice from the holding bin (62); a spout operatively coupled to the holding bin (62) for dispensing ice from the holding bin (62); a cover that encloses the top of the holding bin (62), and a sensor (paragraph [0031]) configured to determine a level of the ice within the holding bin (62), wherein the sensor is hidden under the cover (65) and accessible by removal thereof (paragraph [0031]).
Schroeder fails to teach an interface comprising at least one of a display screen or controls, system electronics, power supplies, or control boards; the chute configured to guide the ice over the interface; the cover having a lid for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access the holding bin, wherein the lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms that remain parallel to each other as the lid is moved between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible; and a controller and a light, the controller being operatively connected to both the sensor and the light, wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the light based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin.
Young teaches a cover (H1A including H1a and H1b) having a lid (H1b) for selectively opening a portion of the cover (H1A including H1a and H1b) to access a holding bin (see Figure 4), wherein the lid (H1b) is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms (see hinges in Figure 4) that remain parallel to each other as the lid (H1b) is moved between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked (see Figure 5) and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cover having a lid for selectively opening a portion of the cover to access the holding bin, wherein the lid is pivotally coupled via a pair of hinge arms that remain parallel to each other as the lid is moved between a closed position in which access to the holding bin is blocked and an open position in which the holding bin is accessible to the structure of Schroeder as taught by Young in order to advantageously provide a service door to allow access to the interior to allow for service to the equipment, such as repairs to cleaning (see Young, page 6 of the machine translation).
Newman teaches a controller (134) and a light (242, Column 5, lines 35-42), the controller (134) being operatively connected to both a sensor (171) and the light (242, Column 5, lines 35-42), wherein the controller (134) is configured to compare a level of ice within a holding bin (170) to a threshold level and to control the light based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin (Column 5, lines 35-42, see Figure 3, step 316 bin not full harvest mode started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a controller and a light, the controller being operatively connected to both the sensor and the light, wherein the controller is configured to compare the level of the ice within the holding bin to a threshold level and to control the light based on the comparison of the level to the threshold level so as to indicate when additional ice is needed in the holding bin to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Newman in order to advantageously provide information to users (see Newman, Column 5, lines 35-42).
Takahashi teaches an interface (control panel with buttons to command the control board on base 26) comprising at least one of a display screen or controls (buttons and levers), system electronics, power supplies, or control boards; a chute (14) configured to guide ice over the interface (ice enters above over the top of plane of the interface, see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an interface comprising at least one of a display screen or controls, system electronics, power supplies, or control boards; the chute configured to guide the ice over the interface to the structure of Schroeder modified supra as taught by Takahashi in order to advantageously provide a control panel for users to control operation of the ice dispenser (see page 3 of machine translation of Takahashi).
When modified, the interface of Takahashi is placed under the chute of Schroeder on merchandiser 63.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Conti (3,605,430).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights