DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 1-12, 15-18, and 20-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit, based on a duration of the occupancy, the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold”. The specification does not appear to support this subject matter. Rather, the specification describes “a controller configured to adjust, based on the sensor detecting occupancy of the area, the proportion of the spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of the light between 0% and 100%.” (para. 91; see also para. 103 which covers similar subject matter: “The method may comprise adjusting, via a controller in communication with the sensor and the one or more light emitters and based on the detecting occupancy of the area, the proportion of spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of light between 0% and 100%.”). These portions of the specification support merely a controller configured to adjust “based on the sensor detecting occupancy” the proportion of spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of the light between 0% and 100%, which is more general than what is claimed. The specification does not appear contain any discussion of a duration of occupancy, and therefore the specification cannot support a controller configured to perform any function based on a duration of occupancy.
Similarly, independent claim 17 has been amended to recite “wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the array of light emitters to continuously emit, based on a duration of the occupancy, the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold” and therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 1, above.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 15-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent 2016/0030609) (already of record) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993).
Regarding claim 1, Yadav et al. discloses a light emitting device (Abstract) comprising:
a circuit board (para. 33); and
at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board (para. 33) and configured to emit a light to inactivate microorganisms (para. 16, 31) and cause a target irradiance at a surface a distance away from the circuit board (para. 16),
wherein the circuit board comprises an on-board controller (“the driver circuit 210 can be implemented on the same circuit board as the HINS LED devices”, para. 48; “The control circuit 250 can be implemented on the same circuit board as the driver circuit 210”, para. 55; the driver circuit and the control circuit read on the claimed on-board controller, see para. 48 and 54-55), wherein the on-board controller comprises a driving circuitry that controls a characteristic of light emitted by the one or more light emitters (para. 48, 53-55),
wherein the characteristic is radiometric power (para. 48-49, 53-55),
wherein the light emitted by the one or more light emitters comprises a wavelength in the range of 380 nm to 420 nm (para. 16),
wherein the light emitting device further comprises a sensor configured to detect occupancy of an area (para. 23),
wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold (para. 16, 22),
wherein the light emitting device is configured to be integrated into a device (para. 28, 33).
As to the limitation wherein a controller is configured to adjust, based on the sensor detecting occupancy of the area, a proportion of a spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of the light between 0% and 100%, this limitation does not further limit the claimed light emitting device because it is directed to “a controller” which is not a positively recited structural component of the light emitting device. Nonetheless, Yadav et al. discloses wherein a controller is configured to adjust, based on the sensor detecting occupancy of the area, a proportion of a spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of the light between 0% and 100% (para. 23, 53).
Yadav et al. is silent as to wherein a diffuser is positioned over the at least one light emitter, wherein a portion of the diffuser is planar; and wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit, based on a duration of the occupancy, the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold.
As to the limitations relating to the diffuser, Peterson et al. discloses a light emitting device comprising at least one light emitter configured to emit light in a range of 380 nm to 420 nm (Abstract), and further discloses wherein the device comprises a diffuser for transmitting light of the at least one light emitter wherein the diffuser “can contribute significantly to the overall efficiency of product function” (para. 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Yadav et al. to comprise a diffuser positioned over the at least one light emitter, based on the teachings of Peterson et al., to improve the overall efficiency of light emission. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to form a portion of the diffuser as planar, as it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04), and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to complement the planar surface of the circuit board disclosed by Yadav et al. (see para. 33 and Fig. 1).
As to the limitation relating to the duration of the occupancy, Shell et al. discloses a device comprising a control system configured to control device operation based on a duration of occupancy of an area occupied by a person (Abstract, para. 89), the device comprising sanitation devices for disinfecting surfaces (para. 71).
Given that Yadav et al. is directed to emitting the light to inactivate microorganism contamination (para. 16) based on occupancy (para. 23), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-board controller to be configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit, based on a duration of the occupancy, the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold, as Shell et al. discloses that it was known in the art to perform control based on a duration of occupancy, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to control light emission based on a duration of occupancy, e.g., increasing decontamination light based on high occupancy.
Regarding claim 3, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the light emitting device is configured to operate such that only light in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range is emitted (thus the proportion of the spectral energy of the light, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm range is 100%, within the claim range) (para. 16, 33, 48).
Regarding claim 5, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the at least one light emitter is further configured to produce a radiometric power that satisfies a threshold, wherein the threshold is based on the target irradiance at the surface (para. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the target irradiance is sufficient to inactivate microorganisms including bacteria across at least a portion of the surface (para. 16).
Yadav et al. is silent as to wherein the target irradiance is at least 0.50 mW/cm2 across at least a portion of the surface.
However, Peterson et al. discloses a light emitting device comprising at least one light emitter configured to emit light in a range of 380 nm to 420 nm, as discussed, wherein the at least one light emitter is configured emit light producing a target irradiance of 10 mW/cm2 across at least a portion of the surface (para. 104), wherein such an irradiance is sufficient to kill bacteria (para. 104-105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one light emitter disclosed by Yadav et al. such that the target irradiance is 10 mW/cm2 across at least a portion of the surface (falls within the claim range), based on the teachings of Peterson et al., in order to arrive at an irradiance recognized in the art to be suitable for killing bacteria.
Regarding claim 7, Yadav et al. discloses the controller, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the radiometric power emitted by the at least one light emitter based on a time that the light emitted by the at least one light emitter has been emitted (para. 24).
Yadav et al. is silent as to a second controller configured to adjust the radiometric power emitted by the at least one light emitter based on a time that the light emitted by the at least one light emitter has been emitted.
Nonetheless, it has been that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device disclosed by Yadav et al. to comprise a second controller configured to adjust the radiometric power emitted by the at least one light emitter based on a time that the light emitted by the at least one light emitter has been emitted, as such a modification represents mere duplication of the first controller, and would provide the predictable outcome of duplicating the function of the first controller, which the skilled artisan would readily recognize as desirable in case of malfunction of the first controller.
Regarding claim 8, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the characteristic is duration of illumination (para. 24, 59).
Regarding claim 9, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the light emitting device further comprises a second light emitter (para. 34), wherein the second light emitter emits second light comprising a different wavelength than the wavelength of the one or more light emitters (para. 34).
Regarding claim 11, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the light emitting device further comprises an array of light emitters (para. 17), wherein the array of light emitters are configured to produce a combined radiometric power that satisfies a threshold wherein the threshold is based on a target irradiance at the surface (para. 16-17).
Regarding claim 15, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the at least one light emitter emitting the light is positioned on a planar circuit board (Fig. 1) and therefore the device is fully capable of operating such tat at least a portion of the light is normal to a portion of the surface.
Regarding claim 16, Yadav et al. discloses at least two of the same light emitter (para. 17, 30), and thus the radiometric power emitted by the at least two light emitters is the same for each light emitter.
Regarding claim 21, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the sensor is disposed on the circuit board (para. 55, 58).
Regarding claim 22, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the sensor comprises a motion sensor (para. 58).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent 2016/0030609) (already of record) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0248898).
Regarding claim 2, Yadav et al. discloses the circuit board and at least one light emitter disposed thereon, as set forth above.
Yadav et al. is silent as to wherein the circuit board is in a form of a ring.
Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04).
Furthermore, Chen discloses that it was known in the art to provide a lighting device (Abstract) so as to comprise a circuit board in a form of a ring and at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board (para. 36) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board disclosed by Yadav et al. to be in the form of a ring, absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent 2016/0030609) (already of record) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Kretschmann (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0129781) (already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the at least one light emitter is configured to emit light centered at a wavelength of 405 nm (para. 16).
Yadav et al. is silent as to the at least one light emitter comprising a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of less than 20 nm to concentrate a spectral energy of the light and minimize energy associated with wavelengths that bleed into an ultraviolet wavelength range.
Kretschmann discloses a light emitting device (Abstract) comprising at least one light emitter configured to emit light having a wavelength of 405 nm in order to reduce bacteria (para. 7-9). Specifically, Kretschmann discloses wherein the at least one light emitter comprises a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of 15-20 nm and centered at a wavelength of approximately 405 nm in order to emit a narrow band of the wavelength (para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one light emitter disclosed by Yadav et al. to comprise a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of less than 20 nm, based on the teachings of Kretschmann, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a narrow emission focused on the desired 405 nm wavelength. As to the limitation of “to concentrate a spectral energy of the light and minimize energy associated with wavelengths that bleed into an ultraviolet wavelength range”, the prior art combination necessarily fulfils this limitation, as the FWHM is by definition the width of an emission peak of emitted light at half of its maximum amplitude, and the prior art light is necessarily concentrated at a narrow band centered at 405 nm which is outside of the ultraviolet range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent 2016/0030609) (already of record) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Global Manufacturing Services (Conformal Coating - The Basics You Should Know) (already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the at least one light emitter further comprises a coating (para. 31).
Yadav et al. is silent as to wherein the coating is a conformal coating.
Global Manufacturing Services discloses that it was known in the art to apply a conformal coating to a circuit board in order to protect the components mounted thereon from environmental contamination (para. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating disclosed by Yadav et al. to comprise a conformal coating, based on the teachings of Global Manufacturing Services, in order to protect the at least one light emitter from environmental contaminants.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent 2016/0030609) (already of record) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Guidolin et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0168384) (already of record).
Regarding claim 12, Yadav et al. teaches the array of light emitters, as set forth above.
Yadav et al. is silent as to boundaries of the light emitted from neighboring light emitters of the array of emitters intersecting or overlapping at the surface.
Guidolin et al. discloses a light emitting device (para. 122) (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, and 5, sheets 1-2 and 5 of 10) comprising a wall and a plurality of light emitters (3) arranged on the wall (para. 55-56, 122, 130-131), the light emitters configured to emit light having a wavelength in the range of 380-420 nm to inactivate microorganisms on a surface a distance away from the wall (para. 130-131, 138, 142-145). Guidolin et al. further discloses arranging the light emitters (3), each of which is emits a cone-shaped beam of light, at intervals along the wall such that boundaries of the light emitted from neighboring light emitters intersect (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, and 5, sheets 1-2 and 5 of 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitters disclosed by Yadav et al. such that boundaries of the light emitted from neighboring light emitters intersect at the surface (e.g. by using light emitters each configured to emit a cone-shaped beam and arranging the light emitters at intervals along the substrate such that boundaries of emitted light intersect), as Guidolin et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide a plurality of light emitters in a treatment device in such a manner, and the skilled artisan would have recognized that providing light emitters such that boundaries of emitted light between the light emitters intersect would increase the coverage of the emitted light and thereby enhance illumination of the surface.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0248898) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993).
Regarding claim 17, Yadav et al. discloses a light emitting device (Abstract) comprising:
a circuit board (para. 19); and
an array of light emitters disposed on the circuit board (para. 17, 19) and configured to emit a light to inactivate microorganisms (para. 16) and cause a target irradiance at a surface a distance away from the circuit board (para. 16),
wherein the circuit board comprises an on-board controller (“the driver circuit 210 can be implemented on the same circuit board as the HINS LED devices”, para. 48; “The control circuit 250 can be implemented on the same circuit board as the driver circuit 210”, para. 55; the driver circuit and the control circuit read on the claimed on-board controller, see para. 48 and 54-55),
wherein the on-board controller comprises a driving circuitry that controls a characteristic of light emitted by the one or more light emitters (para. 48, 53-55),
wherein the characteristic is radiometric power (para. 48-49, 53-55),
wherein the light emitted by the one or more light emitters comprises a wavelength in the range of 380 nm to 420 nm (para. 16),
wherein the light emitting device further comprises a sensor configured to detect occupancy of an area (para. 23),
wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold (para. 16, 22),
wherein the light emitting device is configured to be integrated into a device (para. 28, 33).
As to the limitation wherein a controller is configured to adjust, based on the sensor detecting occupancy of the area, a proportion of a spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of the light between 0% and 100%, this limitation does not further limit the claimed light emitting device because it is directed to “a controller” which is not a positively recited structural component of the light emitting device. Nonetheless, Yadav et al. discloses wherein a controller is configured to adjust, based on the sensor detecting occupancy of the area, a proportion of a spectral energy, measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range, of the light between 0% and 100% (para. 23, 53).
Yadav et al. is silent as to wherein the circuit board is in a form of a ring and the array of light emitters is circular; and wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit, based on a duration of the occupancy, the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold.
As to the limitations relating to the ring shape and circular array, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04).
Furthermore, Chen discloses that it was known in the art to provide a lighting device (Abstract) so as to comprise a circuit board (51) in a form of a ring and a circular array of light emitters (52) disposed on the circuit board (para. 36) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board disclosed by Yadav et al. to be in the form of a ring and the array of light emitters disclosed by Yadav et al. to have a circular shape, absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant.
As to the limitation relating to the duration of the occupancy, Shell et al. discloses a device comprising a control system configured to control device operation based on a duration of occupancy of an area occupied by a person (Abstract, para. 89), the device comprising sanitation devices for disinfecting surfaces (para. 71).
Given that Yadav et al. is directed to emitting the light to inactivate microorganism contamination (para. 16) based on occupancy (para. 23), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-board controller to be configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit, based on a duration of the occupancy, the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold, as Shell et al. discloses that it was known in the art to perform control based on a duration of occupancy, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to control light emission based on a duration of occupancy, e.g., increasing decontamination light based on high occupancy.
Regarding claim 18, Yadav et al. discloses a second circuit board (para. 19, 37), wherein the circuit board and the second circuit board are coupled together (para. 37, 46), and wherein the circuit board and the second circuit board each comprise an array of light emitters configured to produce the target irradiance (para. 19, 37).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0248898) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993), as applied to claim 17, above, and in further view of Peterson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0030609) (already of record).
Regarding claim 20, Yadav et al. is silent as to wherein the circuit board is disposed behind a diffuser wherein the diffuser allows for at least 75% of the light within the range of 380-420 nm to transmit through.
Peterson et al. discloses a light emitting device comprising at least one light emitter configured to emit light in a range of 380 nm to 420 nm (Abstract), and further discloses wherein the device comprises a diffuser for transmitting light of the at least one light emitter wherein the diffuser “can contribute significantly to the overall efficiency of product function” (para. 71). Peterson et al. further discloses that any diffuser for such a device should be made of a material “capable of not substantially absorbing light in the 380 nm to 420 nm range” thereby allowing “most” of this light to transmit through (para. 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Yadav et al. such that the circuit board is disposed behind a diffuser, based on the teachings of Peterson et al., to improve the overall efficiency of light emission. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). Peterson et al. discloses general conditions for the transmission capabilities of diffusers in the 380-420 nm wavelength range, and it would be readily apparent to the skilled artisan that increasing transmission of such light through the diffuser would enhance treatment upon a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation for the percentage of light which can be transmitted through the diffuser in order to arrive at a device capable of delivering a desired amount of 380-420 nm light for surface treatment.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0117193) (already of record) in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0248898) and Shell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0177993), as applied to claim 17, above, and in further view of Dobrinsky (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0298871).
Regarding claim 23, Yadav et al. discloses wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the array of light emitters to continuously emit the light (para. 21-23, 46). Yadav et al. discloses wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the array of light emitters to emit the light over time so as to mimic a day/night cycle (para. 59) and thus it is understood that the on-board controller is configured to cause the array of light emitters to continuously emit the light over many hours.
However, Yadav et al. does not expressly teach wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the array of light emitters to continuously emit the light for at least 2 hours.
Dobrinsky discloses a light emitting device comprising a controller configured to control operation of light emitters (Abstract), wherein the controller is configured to cause the light emitters to continuously emit light for tens of hours for the purpose of inactivating a contaminant (para. 6-8, 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-board controller disclosed by Yadav et al. to be configured to cause the array of light emitters to continuously emit the light for tens of hours (falls within the claim range), as Dobrinsky discloses that it was known in the art to equip a controller in such a manner to control a light dosage for decontamination purposes, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a controller configured to provide a dosage of light recognized in the art to be suitable for decontamination.
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 HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights