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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-24, 29, 30, 33, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,213,336 to Lin, hereinafter referred to as Lin, in view of WO 2018/000055 to Redjal et al. hereinafter referred to as Redjal (provided by Applicant with the IDS filed January 9, 2024)
In reference to claim 21, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin discloses a crockery system comprising:
at least one serving dish (10),
at least one package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material, see column 2 lines 41-45 (temperature storing liquid), and at least one package (40) comprising phase-change material, see column 2 lines 16-30 (note the temperatures storing liquid in 40 will inherently have a temperature at which the liquid would change phase into a solid), wherein the upper side of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material (11) is in thermal contact with the at least one serving dish (10) and the underside of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material (11) is in thermal contact with the at least one package comprising phase-change material (40), see figure 3.
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package being a form-flexible package. Redjal teaches that in the art of PCM cooled crockery, that it is a known method to provide a liquid phase change material in a form-flexible package (pouch), see page 2 lines 13-18, where Redjal teaches that the flexibility of the pouch further ensures that it can be arranged fittingly against wails of different shapes to be heated or cooled without airspaces forming between the pouch and the wall and the pouch can also stretch when the phase-change material expends during transition from the one phase to the other, and such that the pouch becomes taut again when the phase-change material contracts during a reverse phase transition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lin by Redjal such that, the at least one package being a form-flexible package, in order to advantageously ensure that the thermal buffer can be arranged fittingly against wails of different shapes to be heated or cooled without airspaces forming between the pouch and the wall and the pouch can also stretch when the phase-change material expends during transition from the one phase to the other, and such that the pouch becomes taut again when the phase-change material contracts during a reverse phase transition.
In reference to claim 22, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin discloses a carrier device (20) configured for receiving the at least one package comprising phase-change material therein (40) and for receiving the at least one serving dish (10) thereon.
In reference to claim 23, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified by Redjal fails to expressly state that the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material is manufactured from plastic material which is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols, and esters, or is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols and esters. However, it would make sense to provide a plastic that is impermeable to common phase change materials in order to ensure that the phase change material within the pouch did not leak from the pouch when conforming to the serving dish placed thereupon or during expansion during freezing. See for example page 6 lines 11-27 of Redjal where it is disclosed that keeping the material enclosed within the pouch is important. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material is manufactured from plastic material which is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols, and esters, or is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols and esters, in order to ensure that common phase change materials were contained within the desired envelope and did not leak.
In reference to claim 24, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose the liquid thermal buffer material comprises water, salt, alcohols and/or esters. However these materials are commonly used as phase change materials in the art of passive cooling, see for example Redjal page 5 line 29-34. Accordingly, salt hydrates are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization storing and conducting of a temperature. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the liquid thermal buffer material comprises salt, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 29, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose the phase change material comprises water, salt, alcohols and/or esters. However these materials are commonly used as phase change materials in the art of passive cooling, see for example Redjal page 5 line 29-34. Accordingly, salt hydrates are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a PCM. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the phase change material comprises salt, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 30, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the phase-change material has a melting point of between 35°C and 95°C. However, selecting a phase-change material that has a melting/freezing point in the range of a desired temperature of the goods to be heated/cooled is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what temperature it is desired to maintain the product and select a material that would provide the desired temperature. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed temperature range is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the phase-change material such that it has a melting point of between 35°C and 95°C, in order to maintain a product at a temperature between 35°C and 95°C.
In reference to claim 33, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the liquid thermal buffer material has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1 W/(m.K). However, selecting a thermal buffer material that has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1 W/(m.K) is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what thermal conductivity of the material would provide the desired thermal resistance. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed thermal conductivity is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the liquid thermal buffer material has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1 W/(m.K), in order to maintain a product at a temperature between 35°C and 95°C.
In reference to claim 36, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Note that the method of claim 36 produces the crockery system of claim 21. The combination of Lin and Redjal as provided in claim 21 supra would necessarily require the method steps of claim 36. Accordingly, the apparatus of Lin and Redjal as combined (see rejection of claim 21 supra) meets the limitations of claim 36.
In reference to claim 37, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Note that the method of claim 37 produces the crockery system of claim 22. The combination of Lin and Redjal as provided in claim 22 supra would necessarily require the method steps of claim 37. Accordingly, the apparatus of Lin and Redjal as combined (see rejection of claim 22 supra) meets the limitations of claim 37.
Claims 25-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of US 2020/0003474 to Jennie, hereinafter referred to as Jennie.
In reference to claims 25 and 26, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the liquid thermal buffer material comprises a gelling agent (sodium polyacrylate).
Jennie teaches that in the art of refreezable materials, that it is a known method to provide the refreezable material such that it comprises a gelling agent such as sodium polyacrylate, [0029]. Accordingly, gelling agents are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a heat storage material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the liquid thermal buffer material comprises a gelling agent such as sodium polyacrylate, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 27, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to explicitly disclose the package comprising phase-change material (40) is manufactured from form-retaining material.
However, Jennie teaches that in the art of refreezable materials, that it is a known method to provide the refreezable material in a rigid, form-retaining material, see at least [0020]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lin by Jennie such that, the package comprising phase-change material (40) is manufactured from form-retaining material, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of maintaining a desired shape.
In reference to claim 28, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Jennie teaches the package comprising phase-change material is manufactured from form-retaining plastic material which is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols and esters [0029]. Accordingly, when modifying Lin by Jennie as applied in claim 27 supra, the limitations of claim 28 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 31, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the phase-change material comprises a gelling agent.
Jennie teaches that in the art of refreezable materials, that it is a known method to provide the refreezable material such that it comprises a gelling agent, [0029]. Accordingly, gelling agents are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a heat storage material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the phase change material comprises a gelling agent such as sodium polyacrylate, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of WO2018/122471 to Renaud et al., hereinafter referred to as Renaud (see English language translation provided with the non-final Office action mailed October 16, 2025).
In reference to claim 32, Lin, Redjal, and Renaud disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose the at least one serving dish comprises at least one material selected from the group of stainless steel, porcelain, stoneware, glass, tempered glass and plastic.
Renaud teaches that porcelain is a material known to be suitable for serving dishes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the at least one serving dish comprises porcelain, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 34, 35, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of US 2016/0347532 to McCormick hereinafter referred to as McCormik.
In reference to claims 34 and 35, Lin, Redjal, and McCormic disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose a difference between the melting points of the thermal buffer material and the phase-change material amounts to less than 10°C.
MCcormick teaches that the difference between the melting points of a thermal buffer material and the phase-change material is recognized as a result effective variable, because it is a variable that achieves a recognized result. That is to control the temperature of the vessel and protect the payload from temperatures outside the target temperature [0013]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an optimum a difference between the melting points of the thermal buffer material and the phase-change material amounts to less than 10°C, (0°C for claim 35), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
In reference to claim 38, Lin, Redjal, and McCormik disclose the claimed invention.
Lin discloses a method for use of the crockery system according to claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 supra, wherein:
the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material (11) is placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase- change material (see figure 2);
-the at least one serving dish (10), with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material,
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material is placed in a freezer until the phase-change material has solidified.
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material having a melting point of -15°C-5°C, is placed in a freezer until the phase-change material has solidified, nor that the thermal buffer material has a melting point of -5°C-5°C.
With respect to the melting temperatures of the phase change and thermal buffer material, selecting a phase-change material that has a melting/freezing point in the range of a desired temperature of the goods to be heated/cooled is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what temperature it is desired to maintain the product and select a material that would provide the desired temperature. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed temperature range is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the phase-change material such that it has a melting point of between -15°C-5°C and the thermal buffer material has a melting point of -5°C-5°C, in order to maintain a product at a temperature between 5°C-15°C.
McCormik teaches that in the art of phase change materials for keeping contents cold, that it is a known method to charge the phase change material by freezing the phase change material [0025]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the method of Lin by McCormik such that, the at least one package comprising phase-change material is placed in a freezer until the phase-change material has solidified in order to charge the material with cold and keep the contents of the cup cold.
In reference to claim 39, Lin, Redjal, and McCormik disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified by Redjal teaches that system of claim 21, see rejection of claim 21 supra.
- the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material is placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase- change material, see figure 2;
- the at least one serving dish (10), with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material, this itself being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase-change material, see figure 2.
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material having a melting point of -15°C-5°C, is cooled until the phase-change material has solidified, nor that the thermal buffer material has a melting point of -5°C-5°C.
With respect to the melting temperatures of the phase change and thermal buffer material, selecting a phase-change material that has a melting/freezing point in the range of a desired temperature of the goods to be heated/cooled is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what temperature it is desired to maintain the product and select a material that would provide the desired temperature. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed temperature range is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the phase-change material such that it has a melting point of between -15°C-5°C, in order to maintain a product at a temperature between -15°C-5°C.
McCormik teaches that in the art of phase change materials for keeping contents cold, that it is a known method to charge the phase change material by cooling the phase change material until solidified [0025]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the method of Lin by McCormik such that, the at least one package comprising phase-change material is cooled until the phase-change material has solidified in order to charge the material with cold and keep the contents of the cup cold.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of US 2017/0303710 to Sabin et al. hereinafter referred to as Sabin.
In reference to claim 40, Lin, Redjal, and Sabin disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified by Redjal teaches the crockery system according to claim 21, see rejection of claim 21 supra, wherein:
the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material is placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase- change material, see figure 2;
- the at least one serving dish (10), with or without food thereon, is placed in thermal contact on the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material, this itself being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase-change material, see figure 2.
Lin fails to explicitly disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material, is heated until the phase-change material has melted, nor the
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material having a melting point of 35°C-95°C, is heated until the phase-change material has melted.
With respect to the melting temperatures of the phase change material, selecting a phase-change material that has a melting/freezing point in the range of a desired temperature of the goods to be heated/cooled is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what temperature it is desired to maintain the product and select a material that would provide the desired temperature. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed temperature range is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the phase-change material such that it has a melting point of between 35°C-95°C, in order to maintain a product at a temperature between 35°C-95°C.
Further, heating a phase change material until it melts is a known technique, see Sabin [0041]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lin by Sabin such that, the at least one package comprising phase-change material, is heated until the phase-change material has melted in order to charge the pcm to heat the contents of the serving dish.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have successfully overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b). The objections of the claims and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) of the non-final Office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues beginning on page 12 of the response with respect to claim 21 that the “temperature-storing conducting element of Lin” can not be defined as the claimed “thermal buffer material” since the objective of element (11) of Lin is to conduct heat. Applicant states that Applicant’s disclosed “liquid thermal buffer material” inhibits and moderates the flow of thermal energy where as the intention of the thermal conduction material of Lin is to maximize conduction. This is respectfully not found persuasive. Although, Lin teaches that the element (11) is a temperature conducting element, no where in Lin does it teach that the element (11) maximizes conduction as alleged by Applicant. In fact, the liquid within element (11) is disclosed as “temperature storing”, see column 2 lines 41-45. The physical act of storing temperature implies that there is some resistance to heat flux and that the substance has some non-zero measurement of heat capacity. Lin specifically teaches that the thermal storage is most important in storing heat (col. 2 lines 58-66):
At this moment, the resilient element 34 pushes the temperature-storing acting body 40 closely contacting with the temperature-storing conducting element 11 of the cup 10. The temperature of the temperature-storing conducting element 11 is approximately 120.degree. C. to 150.degree. C. By means of the temperature-storing conducting element 11, the coffee inside the cup 10 can remain 80.degree. C. to 60.degree. C. about 20 to 30 minutes.
Here, Lin teaches that heat storage and thus a high heat capacity is an important feature of the liquid within (11) and not conductivity as alleged by Applicant. It is a fact that when placing a thermal storage material between a heat source and a heat sink, the thermal storage material will temporarily store excess heat from the source and release it to the sink acting as a thermal buffer as this will inherently smooth out the thermal load. The disclosure of Lin appears to call the element (11) a temperature conductor since it will indeed conduct some heat from element (40) to element (10). Applicant’s own thermal buffer material will in fact conduct the heat from (110) to the serving dish (130) and in fact claims a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1W/(mk) (see claim 33). This implies that the system would work even with conductivities much higher than 0.1W/(mk) since there is no upper limit. Every material will have some conductivity and some heat capacitive properties since in reality, there is no such thing as a perfect conductor nor a perfect insulator. Thus, the term used in the claim of a “thermal buffer material” is extremely broad since every material will provide some resistance to thermal conductivity and store and release heat between the heat producing and heat receiving element. Applicant alleges that their own disclosure discloses “the express function of [the thermal buffer material] is to inhibit and moderate the flow of thermal energy and that the heat capacity “suffices to sufficiently inhibit the energy flow to prevent undesirable temperature extremes”. This section of Applicant’s specification is not a disclosure that a material with some conductivity could not reasonably be considered the claimed thermal buffer material. This part of Applicant’s disclosure does not define a specific heat capacity that would or would not be sufficient to inhibit the energy flow. Since there is no special definition of what a thermal buffer material is or isn’t in Applicant’s specification, nor do the claims specify an upper limit thermal conductivity, nor do the claim specify a specific heat capacity which would define what is or isn’t a thermal buffer material, then the limitation is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “thermal buffer” is something that slows down the transfer of heat energy. It is reasonable to define any material that would slow down the transfer of energy between the serving dish and phase change material by any amount to be a “thermal buffer”. Since the liquid material within (11) will inherently have some heat capacitive properties (which is indeed implied by being able to store heat therein), it is reasonable to define the liquid within element (11) as the claimed liquid thermal buffer material.
Applicant argues beginning on page 12 of the response that Lin’s element is an integral part of the cup and not a separate flexible package placed in a stack has been considered but is respectfully not been found persuasive. Lin clearly shows element (11) as a separate structure in at least figure 1, and clearly shown as formed from separate elements in figure 2. Further, even if (arguendo) the thermal buffer element (11) was integral with the cup, there is nothing in the claims that requires the elements to be separate elements. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument beginning on page 13 of the response that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on page 13 that one would not be motivated to modify Lin to introduce elements that inhibits heat transfer because Applicant alleges that Lin would want to maximize heat transfer, not inhibit it and therefore teaches away from the combination. This argument is respectfully not found persuasive. Firstly, no where in Lin is there disclosure of maximizing heat transfer via element (11). In fact, element (11) stores heat and it is important that element stores heat. Applicant provides no evidence that Lin is to maximize conduction except as an assumption. An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2145 (I). Further, the modification in claim 21 does not include changing or modifying the thermal buffer material, but merely changes the material the of the package of the liquid thermal buffer material therein (i.e. the metal around the liquid thermal storage material). There is no evidence of record that changing the packaging material (metal walls) of element (11) Lin to be a flexible would mean that Lin would perform differently as it would still store and conduct between the heat to the cup and element 40. Lin does not discourage using a flexible package for storing the liquid thermal buffer material in element (11) nor does Lin state that it must be any particular material. Thus, Lin is not considered to teach away from the combination of Lin and Redjal. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, see MPEP 2123 (II).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Redjal is considered proper and so remains.
Applicant argues beginning on page 14 of the response with respect to claim 24 that modifying the liquid thermal buffer material of Lin to be the claimed substance lacks proper reasoning to combine and is based entirely on improper hindsight reasoning. This argument is respectfully not found persuasive. The examiner explains that the claimed material is a known material known to be suitable for their intended purpose. This has been long held to support a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.07. The intended purpose of the liquid material within (11) is to store and conduct heat from element (40) to cup (10). Redjal teaches that the claimed materials are known to be suitable for storing and conducting heat (see background where Redjal teaches heat storage material as a phase change material). Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness is supported in accordance with MPEP 2144.07. The express teachings of Redjal of using the claimed materials in a way that it has been known to be useful (as a heat storage material) is a strong foundation that the selection of the liquid within the thermal storage element (11) was obvious.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Redjal is considered proper and so remains.
Applicant’s further arguments present on pages 15-20 with respect to the dependent claims 25-28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, and 40 amount to reliance on the traversal of the rejection of claim 21 as being non-obvious. Since the arguments with respect to claim 21 were unpersuasive, and the rejection of claim 21 is considered proper, the rejection of claims 25-28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, and 40 are considered proper and so remain.
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights