DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on October 1, 2025, the objections the claims, drawings, specifications and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office (dated 05/19/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 11-14 have been amended,
Claims 6, 8, 10 and 15-32 have been cancelled, and
Claims 33-60 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7, 11-14 and 33-60 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 1, 2025. Of all the replacement drawings, only Figure 7a is/are NOT acceptable and WILL NOT be entered for the following reason(s):
First and foremost, applicant labels Fig. 7a with new reference characters 37 (δ1), 103 (β1) and 105 (δ2), which denote various dimensions (height, length, spacing width and so on) of the claimed structure(s). However, the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023) does not have any description about these various dimensions nor was concern with their importance relative to the claimed structure(s). This is what examiner considers to be subject matter not previously disclosed; emphasis added.
Specification
The amendment filed October 1, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Applicant has made significant amendments to majority of the original specification for clarification purposes; however, those amendments includes new subject matter and nomenclature (fulcrums, secondary seals, inner lid groove profiles, audible and tactile feedback and so on) that was not previously contemplated by the applicant at the time of filing of the application; emphasis added.
For instance, the amendments made to [0028, 0031-0032], now includes specific dimensions for the claimed structure(s); whereas, the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023) DID NOT mention any of these dimensions nor their importance or criticality. This is what examiner considers to be subject matter not previously disclosed; emphasis added.
the amendments made to [0029, 0032, 0035], now includes specific torque values for the claimed structure(s); whereas, the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023) DID NOT mention any of these torque values nor their importance or criticality. This is what examiner considers to be subject matter not previously disclosed; emphasis added.
the amendments made to [0033, 0035], now includes associated audible or tactile (clicking) feedback or sound between the claimed structure(s); whereas, the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023) DID NOT mention any associated audible or tactile (clicking) feedback or sound between the claimed structure(s) nor their importance or criticality. This is what examiner considers to be subject matter not previously disclosed; emphasis added.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 38, 41, 43, 54 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln. 3, the spacing between “to a cap assembly” should be change to a single space (currently has a double space).
In claim 5, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the disc…” could read “…the tamper-evident disc…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 38, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the disc…” could read “…the tamper-evident disc…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 41, ln. 2-3, the phrases, “…the rear-wall…” and “…the front-wall…” could read “…the upper bead rear-wall…” and “…the upper bead front-wall…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 43, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the radial retaining grips…” could read “…the circular array of radial retaining grips…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 54, ln. 8, the phrase, “…the channel…” could read “…the through precut channel…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 9, 11-14, 33-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 7, ln. 2-3, "…a seal having….or curved surface with a radius…" IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 9, ln. 2, the phrase, “…a front-facet of said push tab…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 9, ln. 3, the phrase, “…a recess groove profile and a vertical step…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 11, ln. 15-16, the phrases, “…a front facet and two side-facets, the front-facet and two side-facets…” and “…a recess groove profile of an inner lid…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 11, ln. 20-21, the phrase, “…a front-wall at a first distance (δ1) above a frangible joint, and a rear-wall located at a second distance (δ2), wherein δ2 is at least twice δ1…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 11, ln. 22, the phrase, “…a leading chamfer…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 11, ln. 31-32, the phrase, “…a vertical step…a leading wall extending beyond the front-facet of the push-tab…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 11, ln. 32-38, the phrases in each instance, “the front-facet of the push tab…” and “…the side-facets of the push-tab…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 11, ln. 39-40, the phrase, “…a clicking interaction without disengagement…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 12, ln. 2-5, the phrases, “…the front-facet of the push tab…” “…the recess groove profile of the inner lid…” “…the leading wall….of the inner lid…” and “…the side-facet of the push-tab…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 13, ln. 5-6, the phrases, “the front-facet…” “…the recess groove profile of the push-tab” and “…the recess groove profile of the inner lid…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 14, ln. 4-7, the phrases, “…the front-facet of the push tab…” “…the recess groove profile of the inner lid…” “…the leading wall….of the inner lid…” and “…the side-facet of the push-tab…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 33, ln. 2-4, the phrases, “…a front-facet and two side-faces…” and “…a complementary recess groove prole of the inner lid…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 34, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the ledge surface…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 35, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the circular ring of the inner lid serves as a fulcrum against the push-tab inner wall…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 36, ln. 1-3, the phrases, “…the push-tab facets…” “…the facets…” and “the recess groove profile…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 37, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the planar front-facet and side-facets of the push-tab…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 38, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the planar front-facet and side-facets of the push-tab…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 40, ln. 2, the phrase, “…a circular ring of the inner lid serves as a fulcrum against the push-tab inner wall…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 41, ln. 2-4, the phrase, “…an upper bead rear-wall (δ2) and an upper bead front-wall (δ1), the rear-wall (δ2) having a height at least twice that of the front-wall (δ1)…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 42, ln. 1-4, the phrases, “…the front-facet of the push tab…” and “…the recess groove profile and a vertical step of the inner lid…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 43, ln. 2-3, the phrases, “…a leading chamfer…” and “…the leading chamfer…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
As for claims 12-14 and 39-43, due to their dependencies from claim 11, they too have these deficiencies.
In claim 44, ln. 7, the phrase, “…a through precut channel…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 9, the phrase, “…an outer pitch wall…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 10, the phrase, “…a push-tab having a front-facet and two side-facets…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 13-14, the phrase, “…a front-wall at a first distance (β1) above the frangible joint and a rear-wall at a second distance (β2), wherein β2 is at least twice β1…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 15, the phrase, “…a leading chamfer…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 19-20, the phrase, “…wherein the upper bead ramp and lower bead ramp have matching angles of 10-30° to facilitate sliding and wedging…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 21-24, the phrases, “…a ledge surface…” “…a vertical step and a recess groove profile…” “…the recess groove profile…” and “…the front-facet and side-facets of the push tab…” ARE NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 44, ln. 25-27, the phrase, “…wherein a total bead height comprising a lower bead flat-surface (δ1) and an upper bead flat-surface (δ2) is between 3 x and 5 x the height of the frangible joint, ensuring reliable tamper-evident disc ejection…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 45, ln. 2-3, the phrases, “…the front-facet and side-facets of the push-tab…” and “…the recess groove profile of the inner lid…” ARE NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 47, ln. 3-4, the phrase, “…a rotational torque of 10-25 Nm exceeding a predetermined threshold is applied…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 48, ln. 2-4, the phrases, “…the front-facet of the push-tab…” “…the recess groove profile of the inner lid…” “…the leading wall…” and “…the side-facet of the push-tab…” ARE NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 49, ln. 2-4, the phrase, “…the upper bead height (β1, β2) and the lower bead flat-surface height (δ1, δ2) are dimensioned such that δ1 + δ2 is between 3x and 5x the height of the frangible joint, ensuring reliable tamper-evident disc ejection…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 50, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the retention force between the inner lid and the container is between 15 N and 40 N greater than the rotational force required to rotate the outer lid counterclockwise…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 51, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the snap-on circular ring of the inner lid at an angle of 30-45°…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 52, ln. 2-4, the phrases, “…the ledge surface of the inner lid comprises a vertical step…” and “…the front-facet and side-facets of the push-tab…” ARE NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
As for claims 45-53, due to their dependencies from claim 44, they too have these deficiencies.
In claim 54, ln. 7-8, the phrase, “…a through precut channel, the channel…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 54, ln. 30-31, the phrase, “…a locking torque of the male/female fasteners between the container and the inner lid is greater than the rotational retention of the outer lid…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 54, ln. 31-32, the phrase, “…a clicking sound…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 54, ln. 33-34, the phrase, “…the front-facet and two recess sidewalls of engage a recess groove profile of the inner lid…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 55, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the side-facets of the push-tab…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 56, ln. 2-4, the phrases, “…the front-facet and side-facets engage the recess groove profile of the inner lid…” and “…a torque of 5-15 Nm, to remove the cap…” ARE NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 58, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the push-tab front facet…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 58, ln. 4, the phrase, “…a clicking interaction…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/15/2023); emphasis added.
As for claims 55-60, due to their dependencies from claim 54, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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.
Claim 1-5, 7, 11-14 and 33-60 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 8, the phrase, “…the cylindrical wall…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 8, the phrase, “…the vertical outer wall…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 9, the phrase, “…serration grippers…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 18-19, the phrase, “…the female fastener…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 24, the phrase, “…the bottom wall of the inner lid…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a bottom wall of the inner lid” per se in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 24-25, the phrase, “…the end-wall of the desiccant basket…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “an end-wall of the desiccant basket” per se in claim 1. Rather, applicant introduced the desiccant basket having “at least one end-wall” in claim 3 (which depends from claim 1). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 2, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…a desiccant basket…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is encompassing the same “a desiccant basket” (claim 1, ln. 24; which claim 2 depends from) OR a different “desiccant basket” in this occurrence? Further clarification is required.
In claim 3, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…at least one end-wall or lateral wall of the desiccant basket…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing the same “the end-wall of the desiccant basket” (claim 1, ln. 24-25; which claim 3 depends from) OR a different end-wall in this occurrence? Further clarification is required.
In claim 3, ln. 3, the phrase, “…a transmission hole…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing the same “at least one transmission hole” (claim 1, ln. 25-26; which claim 3 depends from) OR a different transmission hole in this occurrence? Further clarification is required.
In claim 11, ln. 4 and 30, the phrase in each instance, “…a male/female fastener…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash.
In claim 11, ln. 23, the phrase, “…configured to guide assembly…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Furthermore, it is unclear to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 11, ln. 23, the phrase, “…a circular ring of the inner lid…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant introduced “an inner lid having a circular ring” (in claim 11, ln. 28-29); emphasis added. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 11, ln. 32-33, the phrase, “…the side-facets of the push tabs…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 11, ln. 33, the phrase, “…the leading wall of the inner lid…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established “an upper wall having a leading wall” (claim 11, ln. 31-32) NOT the inner lid having “a leading wall.” Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 33, ln. 3, the phrase, “...substantially...” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 34, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the ledge surface…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 36, ln. 1-3, the phrases, “…the push-tab facets…” “…the facets…” and “the recess groove profile…” all lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 37, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the planar front-facet and side-facets of the push-tab…” lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 38, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the planar front-facet and side-facets of the push-tab…” lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 44, ln. 5, the phrases, “…a cap…” and “…the cap…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because applicant established “a cap” (claim 44, ln. 4). Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the same “a cap” (of ln. 4) OR a different “cap” in these occurrences? Further clarification is required.
In claim 44, ln. 13, the phrase, “…the frangible joint…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 47, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the frangible joint…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 48, ln. 4, the phrase, “…the side-facet of the push-tab…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 49, ln. 2-4, the phrase, “…the upper bead height (β1, β2) and the lower bead flat-surface height (δ1, δ2) are dimensioned such that δ1 + δ2 is between 3x and 5x the height of the frangible joint, ensuring reliable tamper-evident disc ejection…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 50, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the retention force between the inner lid and the container is between 15 N and 40 N greater than the rotational force required to rotate the outer lid counterclockwise…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 54, ln. 5, the phrases, “…a cap…” and “…the cap…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because applicant established “a cap” (claim 54, ln. 4). Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the same “a cap” (of ln. 4) OR a different “cap” in these occurrences? Further clarification is required.
In claim 54, ln. 21, the phrase, “…a male/female fastener…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash.
In claim 54, ln. 27-28, the phrase, “…the frangible joint…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 54, ln. 30, the phrase, “…the male/female fasteners…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash and also it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 56, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the cap assembly…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 57, ln. 3-4, the phrase, “…the frangible joint…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 58, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the push-tab front facet…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 60, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the radial groove…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 60, ln. 2, the phrase, “…can be…” is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “can” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “can” are consider to be optional limitations.
As for claims 2-5, 7, 12-14, 39-43, 45-53 and 55-60, due to their dependencies from claims 1, 11, 44 and 54 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Furthermore, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP §2173.06
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736