DETAILED ACTION
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 filed 2/10/2026 in response to Office Actions 10/8/2025 and 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that a welding between the top to the tube as Nomula teaches would leak (page 8 line 4), therefore it is different structure than the “monolithic” limitation (line 5) they propose in light of the written specification (i.e. injection molding as one piece would not leak; Affidavit) (page 7 para 3). Applicant argues again that there is criticality so the KSR reasoning is improper (page 11 para 1). Examiner points out a new grounds of rejection is necessitated by the amendment “continuously around”, and that examiner uses a different prior art Allen now teaching “monolithic” without the prior KSR rationale. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that obviousness is not taught for claims 1 and 5-15 (page 9). Examiner points out no evidence means the argument is mere allegation, and examiner has nothing they can respond to. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 21-22, Applicant argues the mold and injecting into it are important (pages 9-10). However, the claims are invalid. Please see a detailed analysis in the election by original presentation rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Nomula’s inward facing surface of the outer lid being an outer surface of flange 47 as cited is not inward facing or not of the outer lid 46 (page 12 para 2). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that the outer surface of 47 is inward facing at least in the rightward direction from viewer perspective, and is shown on/of 46 (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Nomula’s inward surface of 47 is not “continuously around” the central axis as amended (page 12 para 4). Examiner agrees, in light of their specification. However, the narrowing amendment necessitates a new grounds of rejection rendering the argument moot since Nomula does not teach that said inward surface is continuously around. Please see a detailed analysis by different prior art Zackheim in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Nomula’s inward surface of 47 is not “radially around” the central axis as amended (page 12 para 5). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that Nomula element 47 is positioned radially around the central axis (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Nomula’s inward surface of 47 is not angled “shallower” as claimed than “the radially outward facing surface of the cap pull tab” 50 of Nomula (page 13 line 1). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that that surface of 47 is at a shallower angle (somewhere between about 10 and 50 degrees) than the perpendicular (90 degrees) angle of the outer peripheral surface of 50 (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that secondary prior art Dwinell teaching the claimed angle on the outer surface of the cap pull tab of Nomula would trap the pull tab in the injection mold it is processed from because the angle creates an undercut, thereby would be impossible to pull out of the mold (page 13 para 3). Applicant also states methods of releasing it from the mold ([0032] [0036]). Examiner points out those are known methods, and the claim is not a method but a product claim rendering the argument moot. Please see a detailed analysis in the Affidavit response immediately hereafter.
In response to the Affidavit, Applicant summarily argues that secondary prior art Dwinell would make the cap pull tab outer surface of Nomula angled into an “undercut” therefore impossible to make via injection molding as one piece (page 5, #17 lines 10-12). Examiner points it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (4/13/2023) how to produce undercuts in injection molding of a single/one piece part like in prior art Allen below (e.g. Fig 11, whole tab 234), and as evidenced in the instructions to injection molding of single parts with undercuts by the Protolabs NPL (1/14/2022) in the attached PTO-892. In the NPL at least a capture of side action single injection molding is shown to achieve undercuts. However, regardless of the process, the claims have always been toward the product (see election by original presentation below), rendering the process arbitrary as long as the structure has been made. In other words, the prior art constructs the same structure as claimed including being monolithic (i.e. injection molded together), so the argument of process is moot given that the process will not make the product patentable over the structure, since it has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. MPEP 2113 I. Please see a new grounds of rejection forming the amended structure in the detailed analysis below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20050017005 issued to Nomula (hereinafter “Nomula”) in view of US Pat 4380303 issued to Allen et al. (hereinafter “Allen”) in view of US Pat 4146148 issued to Dwinell et al. (hereinafter “Dwinell”) in further view of US Pub 20060000793 by Mavin et al. (hereinafter “Mavin”) in view of US Pat 3397814 issued to Zackheim (hereinafter “Zackheim”).
Regarding claim 1, Nomula teaches a tube assembly (Fig 1, a tube assembly is container 10 being “cylindrical” [0021]) comprising:
a tube having an outer diameter and an inner diameter, wherein the tube comprises a cylindrical shape (Figs 1-3, [0021], a tube is base portion 12 formed of a cylindrical side 14 showing an inner and outer diameter); and
a top (Fig 1, a top is closure 30) integrally formed with the tube ([0030] “closure 30 and the base portion 12 [are joined by] welding” which is integral forming; Abstract, plastic container, plastic cover membrane), wherein
the top comprises:
an outer lid (Fig 3, an outer lid is outer membrane 46);
a cap (Fig 3, a cap/inner lid is membrane 44), wherein the cap comprises a cap pull tab protruding outwards from the tube assembly (Fig 1, 50 protrudes outward from 30, 46 and 12), wherein the outer lid is coupled between the tube and the cap (Figs 1-3, 46 is coupled between 12/14 and 44); and
a breakable portion disposed between the cap (44) and the outer lid (46), wherein the breakable portion is configured to be relatively structurally weaker than surrounding areas to allow for breaking off and separating completely the cap at the breakable portion, wherein the breakable portion comprises a thin portion comprising at least one of an upper recess or a lower recess (Fig 3, a breakable portion is a lower recess groove 40 between 44 and 46; [0025] “groove 40 or score extends annularly on the membrane 32 and defines a fail portion 42” [0027] “pulling on the pull ring 50 and tearing the fail portion 42”, so that [0026] Fig 5B, “the inner membrane portion 44 is removed” fully), wherein
an angle of an inward facing surface of the outer lid (Fig 3, an angled outer surface of 47 which is an/one inward facing surface of the outer lid 46 as shown (e.g. not horizontal or vertical)) being shallower (47 surface is shown as a shallower angle than 50’s outward facing surface) than an angle of a radially outward facing surface of the cap pull tab (Fig 3, an angle of a radially outward facing surface of 50 is shown (e.g. substantially 90 degrees or perpendicular)), wherein
the inward facing surface of the outer lid (said surface of 47) and the radially outward facing surface of the cap pull tab (said surface of 50) are each disposed radially around a central axis of the tube (Fig 2, said surface of 47 and said surface of 50 are shown each radially disposed around/relative to the tube central axis).
Examiner Note: The limitation “and continuously around” is not taught by the inward facing surface of the outer lid of Nomula (said surface of 47; see Zackheim prior art modification below), but is taught by the radially outward facing surface of the cap pull tab of Nomula (said surface of 50) since said outward surface is shown continuously and completely around the central axis (Fig 2).
But Nomula does not explicitly teach that the tube and top are a continuous, seamless, (injection molded) monolithic single part comprising a same material, wherein the same material comprises plastic (Nomula, e.g. [0030] “closure 30 and the base portion 12 [are joined by] welding”; Abstract, plastic container, plastic cover membrane).
Allen, however, teaches a similar cylindrical shaped container (i.e. a tube) (Fig 11, container blank 200 is shown tube shape) one-piece injection molded (i.e. monolithic) with a top (Figs 12-13, closure 201 is a top) having a cap with cap pull tab (Fig 12, a cap is panel 216 with a cap pull tab which is pull-open ring 234)
(wherein one/same plastic material is used in each of the top 201, having 216 and 234, and tube 200 injection molds injection molded together as a monolith (shown as one piece in Fig 13);
Figs 11-16, col 9 lines 44-50, “FIGS. 11 through 13 illustrate an essentially non-tapered container blank 200 molded so as to have an integrally formed easy-open closure 201. FIGS. 14 through 16 illustrate mold apparatus which has been suitably modified for accomplishment of the one-piece molding of a container blank having an easy-open top and for discharging therefrom the uniquely molded part”;
Abstract, “the container from an injection mold apparatus. The described molded part extraction technology allows the formation of a novel easy-open closure in which the easy-openable closure structure is injection molded and may be one piece with a container side wall.”
Col 12 lines 45-51, “FIG. 14 illustrates the position of the parts of the mold apparatus at the time molten plastic is injected into the mold to form the container blank 200. It is to be noted, of course, that this molding procedure results in formation of the container chime 208, the closure panel 216, and all of the features of the container blank 200 heretofore discussed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the tube and top, including cap and cap pull tab, of Nomula by monolithic continuous seamless injection molding them as a single plastic part as taught by Allen (above), instead of welding the plastic top to plastic tube of Nomula, in order to advantageously save cost on assembly of top to tube by not having skilled welding labor or additional weld machinery and welding materials burned per iteration, and save time, by removing that welding cost per part, and beneficially prevent weld non-uniformity that causes lower integrity/stress concentration permitting breaks by instead having one machine monolithically seamlessly and repeatably perform the integral combination into one monolithic piece over thousands of iterations.
But Nomula/Allen does not explicitly teach the radially outward facing surface of the cap pull tab is angled.
Dwinell, however, teaches a similar pull tab top comprising:
a radially outward facing surface of the cap pull tab is angled backwards to define a lip configured to be grabbed by a user (see annotated Figure below, can be grabbed by user).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull tab outward surface of Nomula to have a backwards angle as taught by Dwinell in order to advantageously “provide a [more] comfortable surface, devoid of sharp edges” (as taught by Mavin, [0080]) by removing the corner (sharp edge) of Nomula’s ring 50 to be that of Dwinell’s.
But Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Mavin does not explicitly teach that the inward facing surface of the outer lid (Nomula, Figs 2-3, inward facing surface of 47) is disposed continuously around the central axis (in light of the instant specification Figs 4-5, a top inward facing surface of outer lid 110 at its label is disposed/extends “continuously around” said axis).
Zackheim, however, teaches a similar tube assembly comprising: an inward facing surface of a lid is disposed continuously around the central axis (Figs 1-2, inner peripheral edge 14 has an inward facing surface toward the central axis of a lid 10 and is shown extending continuously around the central axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inward facing surface of 47 of the outer lid of Nomula to be continuous as taught by Zackheim, around the central axis of the lid of Nomula, in order to advantageously reinforce the lid versus jostling and jolts to further prevent impulse breaking and increase fatigue life by extending the supported area covered by 47 (Nomula, [0024] “flanges 47… stiffen or otherwise provide support to the membrane portions 44, 46” of the lid). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inward facing surface of 47 of the outer lid of Nomula to be continuous, to stiffen the lid as detailed above, since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction (e.g. Zackheim, continuous surface of 14) instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art (e.g. Nomula, surfaces of 47) would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality ([0034] [0036] [0038] [0042]) for the claimed limitation (i.e. being a continuous surface around).
Regarding claim 5, Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Mavin/Zackheim does not explicitly teach a specific angle of the outer lid (meaning the inward facing surface thereof; instant Figs 4-5) is 35 degrees or less relative to a radial plane (e.g. Nomula teaches between about 10 and 50 degrees).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at an outer lid (inward facing surface) angle of 35 degrees or less, recognizing that a decrease in angle is directly correlated to a decrease of material use which advantageously saves significant cost over thousands of iterations, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Nomula further teaches the angle of the cap pull tab is 47.5 degrees or more relative to a radial plane (Fig 3, the angle of 50 is 90 degrees as shown (i.e. at least greater than 47.5 degrees)).
Regarding claim 7, Nomula further teaches the angle of the lower recess is less than 90 degrees (Fig 3, an angle of 40 is shown as less than 90 degrees at a surface of lead line 40 relative to a radial axis along 46 or the central axis).
Regarding claim 8, Nomula further teaches the breakable portion is circle-shaped (Fig 5B, 40 is shown circular (dashed line an opening edge)).
Regarding claim 9, Nomula further teaches the breakable portion defines an outer edge of the cap (Figs 1 & 5B, 40 defines an outer edge of cap 44).
Regarding claim 12, Nomula further teaches the breakable portion spans each side of the top of the tube assembly (Figs 1 & 5B, 40 spans the entire periphery of 44 and thereby also spans/extends along all sides of top 30 (if a circle can have sides, otherwise just the side of the circle)).
Regarding claim 13, Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Zackheim does not explicitly teach a specific tube side wall thickness of the tube is 0.035 inches or less.
Mavin, however, teaches a similar cap with pull tab on a tube (Figs 2-4, [0058] circular cross section container 12 (i.e. a cylindrical/tube container) having a cap 100 having a pull tab 112 of a lid 14) comprising: a tube side wall thickness of 0.035 inches or less ([0065] “container having… a wall thickness of between 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a tube side wall thickness of 0.035 inches or less, recognizing that a decrease in thickness is directly correlated to advantageously increase in saved material cost of manufacture over thousands of iterations, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20050017005 issued to Nomula (hereinafter “Nomula”) in view of US Pat 4380303 issued to Allen et al. (hereinafter “Allen”) in view of US Pat 4146148 issued to Dwinell et al. (hereinafter “Dwinell”) in further view of US Pub 20060000793 by Mavin et al. (hereinafter “Mavin”) in view of US Pat 3397814 issued to Zackheim (hereinafter “Zackheim”) in view of US Pub 20210031973 issued to Whitmore et al. (hereinafter “Whitmore”).
Regarding claim 10, Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Mavin/Zackheim does not explicitly teach the outer edge of the cap is at least 1.472 inches in diameter.
Whitmore, however, teaches a similar pull tab on a cap on a tube comprising (Figs 18-22, a cap is center panel 360 with a pull tab 364 on a tube which is body 314): a cap diameter of at least 1.472 inches (Fig 19, cap 360 is at least 2.00 inches in diameter because, [0131] outer diameter OD is “about 4.00 inches”, [0133] and “the entire center panel 360 is pealed back and removed” by the pull tab 364 via a circular scoreline 362, Fig 21, wherein 362 (360’s diameter) is shown as at least half of the OD (which is not a specific value or proportion, just a general proportion a POSITA can see)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a cap diameter of at least 1.472 inches, recognizing that an increase in cap diameter is directly correlated to an increase in accessibility of a user’s finger, fingers, hand or hands into the container through the hole the cap leaves behind after removal that determines advantageously increased ease of use, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Mavin/Zackheim does not explicitly teach a specific inner diameter of the tube is at least 2.03 inches.
Whitmore, however, teaches a similar pull tab on a cap on a tube comprising (Figs 18-22, a cap is center panel 360 with a pull tab 364 on a tube which is body 314 of container 310): an inner diameter of the tube of at least 2.03 inches (Fig 19, [0131] “The container 310 has an outer diameter OD and a top inner diameter TID”, wherein “the top inner diameter TID is between about 2.00 inches and about 3.90 inches”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a tube inner diameter of at least 2.03 inches, recognizing that an increase in planar tube diameter is directly correlated to an increase in volume of contents containable customizable to user need so more advantageously able to be offered to a wider variety of customers’ needs of purposes and materials for transport and storage in a wider variety of industries, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Mavin/Zackheim does not explicitly teach a specific total diameter of the tube assembly is at least 2.2 inches.
Whitmore, however, teaches a similar pull tab on a cap on a tube comprising (Figs 18-22, a cap is center panel 360 with a pull tab 364 on a tube which is body 314 of container 310): a total diameter of the tube assembly is at least 2.2 inches (Fig 19, [0131] “The container 310 has an outer diameter OD and a top inner diameter TID”, wherein “the outer diameter OD is between about 2.00 inches and about 4.00 inches”, and the lid is also shown aligned/within that OD, Figs 18 & 22, meaning the whole assembly is that range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a tube total/outer diameter of at least 2.2 inches, recognizing that an increase in tube diameter is directly correlated to an increase in volume of contents containable customizable to user need so more advantageously able to be offered to a wider variety of customers’ needs of purposes and materials for transport and storage in a wider variety of industries, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20050017005 issued to Nomula (hereinafter “Nomula”) in view of US Pat 4380303 issued to Allen et al. (hereinafter “Allen”) in view of US Pat 4146148 issued to Dwinell et al. (hereinafter “Dwinell”) in further view of US Pub 20060000793 by Mavin et al. (hereinafter “Mavin”) in view of US Pat 3397814 issued to Zackheim (hereinafter “Zackheim”) in view of GB 2216064 issued to Piltz et al. (hereinafter “Piltz”).
Regarding claim 11, Nomula/Allen/Dwinell/Mavin/Zackheim does not explicitly teach a specific thickness of the cap is at least 0.09 inches.
Piltz, however, teaches a similar pull tab on a cap comprising (Figs 1-5, page 5 lines 12-17, “Fig. 4 a circular blank 25 of said material” [plastics in lines 9-10] “will be broken through along the groove 16” shown continuously circular in Fig 2): a cap thickness of at least 0.09 inches ([0040] “The end closure 10 is an integral injection moulded unit that is injection moulded in one shot from a centrally placed single ingot 11. The material may for instance be polypropylene… The maximum thickness of the closure 10 is one or a few millimeters”, wherein “few” broadly reasonably means more than two).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a cap thickness of at least 0.09 inches, recognizing that an increase in cap thickness is directly correlated to a decrease in permeability thereby advantageously increasing freshness of contents for longer duration, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 21-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 21, this process invention of “A method of forming a tube assembly” by “injecting” (line 5) and the product invention “A tube assembly” of claim 1 are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In this case: the process as claimed can be used to make a materially different product such as any cylindrical container with a top or bottom, and/or the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process such as additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 22, this apparatus invention of “A mold forming a tube assembly” and product invention “A tube assembly” of claim 1 are related as apparatus and product made. The inventions in this relationship are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different apparatus (MPEP § 806.05(g)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to make a materially different product such as any cylindrical container with a top or bottom, and/or the product as claimed can be made by a materially different apparatus such as a blow mold or on an additive manufacturing tray.
Regarding claim 21 (process with injecting) relative to 22 (apparatus of a mold), are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by a materially different apparatus such as a blow mold or by hand with a casting mold, and/or the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice a materially different process such as blow molding or casting.
Examiner notes that the original product claim 1 “integrally formed” “monolithic” only means the product is one piece. Examiner also notes that prior art Allen reinforces that material differences are obvious at least among method to product and apparatus to product (Allen, Abstract, “closure structure is injection molded and may be one piece with a container side wall. The disclosure also includes a description of two forms of molding method and apparatus suitable for accomplishment of the described technology”).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (i.e. product of claim 1), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733