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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed April 23rd, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed 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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 102288691), hereinafter Kim in view of Tollet et al. (US Patent No. 5,592,828), hereinafter Tollet and Winkle et al. (US Patent No. 10,240,846), hereinafter Winkle.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a cooler (Fig. 1, vacuum rice container; Pg. 4, the present invention may be configured to include a refrigeration device for maintaining a constant temperature of the inner container 100 as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. That is, the present invention is configured to include a refrigeration device in order to keep the grains stored fresh for a long time by maintaining the storage temperature of the grains stored in the inner container at the optimum temperature (for example, 3 ~ 9 °C)) comprising:
a housing at least partially defining an interior space and an opening to the interior space (Fig. 1, main body 200, inner container 100; See annotated Fig. 2 of Kim below, opening A);
a lid coupled to the housing to selectively close the opening (Fig. 1, cover 300; Pg. 3, The cover 300 covers the upper portion of the inner group 100 and the main body 200, but two or more vents communicating with the upper portion of the inner group 100 while closely adhering to the upper end of the inner group 100 310 is formed. That is, the cover 300 is in close contact with the upper end of the inner container 100 to prevent air leakage or inflow, while sucking the air inside the inner container through the vent 310 to create a vacuum state. As shown in the drawings, the cover 300 may be opened and closed by being pivotally coupled to the rear of the main body 200 by a hinge, or may be opened and closed in a state separated from the main body 100);
a refrigeration system including a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator, and a refrigerant line configured to transport refrigerant, the condenser configured to facilitate heat transfer from the refrigerant to an ambient atmosphere, the evaporator configured to facilitate heat transfer from the interior space to the refrigerant, and the refrigerant line configured to allow the refrigerant to flow in a cycle between the compressor, the condenser, and the evaporator (Fig. 9, refrigerating device 600, compressor 620, condenser 630, evaporator 610; Pg. 4, The present invention is an embodiment of the refrigeration device, as shown in FIG. 9, the receiving space 210 of the main body 200 includes an evaporator 610 installed to surround the inner container 100 and circulates the refrigerant. A refrigerant circulation type refrigerating device 600 to maintain a constant temperature may be configured. At this time, a compressor 620 for circulating the refrigerant, a condenser 630 for turning the refrigerant into a liquid, and an expansion valve (not shown) for turning the condensed refrigerant into a gas are provided in the lower portion of the main body 200 will become; Further, the teaching of the refrigerating device 600, which is a vapor compression system, at least implies a refrigerant line since it has been held it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Moreover, the condenser 630, evaporator 610, and the implied refrigerant line of Kim have the same structure as the claimed condenser, evaporator, and refrigerant line and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a vacuum system including a vacuum pump configured to selectively evacuate air from the interior space (Fig. 5, vacuum control device 400, vacuum pump 410, vacuum release valve 420; Pg. 3-4, That is, the vacuum control device 400 makes the inner container 100 into a vacuum state by control in the closed state of the cover 300 or releases the vacuum state of the inner container to open the cover 300. It is made up of composition. In addition, the vacuum control device 400 includes all components to be automatically controlled or to be manually controlled; Further, the vacuum pump 410 of Kim has the same structure as the claimed vacuum pump and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed); and
a battery pack configured to supply electrical current to both the compressor and the vacuum pump to operate the refrigeration system and the vacuum system, respectively (Fig. 5, The vacuum control device 400 is connected to the vent 310 of the cover 300 as an embodiment, and a vacuum pump 410 for sucking the air of the inner container 100 by control, the vent 310 and A vacuum release valve 420 that allows external air to flow into the inner container by control while being connected, and is exposed to the outside through the upper or front surface of the cover 300 to control the vacuum pump and the vacuum release valve It is configured to include an operation panel 430 and a power supply unit 440 for supplying power required to control the vacuum pump and the vacuum release valve…power supply unit 440; Pg. 4, power supply unit 440 may be configured to use a built-in battery or an external power source. Of course, it is possible to form a terminal for connecting an external power source to charge the battery to the rear or one side of the cover using the battery as a rechargeable battery; Further, the power supply unit 440 of Kim has the same structure as the claimed battery pack and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the housing to be insulated.
Tollet teaches the housing to be insulated (Fig. 4, freezing apparatus 2, freezer box 4, insulation layer 14, insulation layer 38; Col. 3, lines 19-21, Freezer box 4 includes an outer wall 10, an inner wall 12, and an insulation layer 14 provided between walls 10 and 12; Col. 4, lines 4-6, Insulation layer 38 can be formed from polyurethane foam or generally any other type of insulation material used in constructing freezer systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of the cooler of Kim of claim 1 to be insulated as taught by Tollet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve desired heat transfer properties within the cooler to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Kim as modified does not disclose a temperature sensor configured to output a temperature signal indicative of a temperature of the interior space;
a pressure sensor configured to output a pressure signal indicative of a pressure in the interior space; and
a controller configured to receive the temperature signal and the pressure signal, and activate the vacuum system to create a vacuum within the interior space when the temperature of the interior space is less than or equal to a set point temperature.
Winkle teaches a temperature sensor configured to output a temperature signal indicative of a temperature of the interior space (Fig. 3, delivery container 300; Col. 6, lines 48-51, The merchandise storage area 310 also includes a temperature sensor 322 for measuring the temperature in the merchandise storage area 308 at desired time intervals during transport of the merchandise 318);
a pressure sensor configured to output a pressure signal indicative of a pressure in the interior space (Col. 6, lines 60-63, The delivery container 300 includes a vacuum pump that is preferably coupled to a pressure sensor (not shown) and to a power source (not shown), such as a battery, which may be part of a unitary structure); and
a controller configured to receive the temperature signal and the pressure signal, and control the vacuum system of the cooler based on temperature signals from a temperature sensor to achieve desired temperature conditions within the interior space of the cooler (Fig. 3, control circuit 324; Col. 6-7, lines 55-67 and 1-2, In this form, it is generally contemplated that the insulation compartment 310 is partially evacuated to create a partial vacuum, whose insulation characteristics are used to maintain the merchandise storage area 308 within the desired temperature range. The delivery container 300 includes a vacuum pump that is preferably coupled to a pressure sensor (not shown) and to a power source (not shown), such as a battery, which may be part of a unitary structure. The vacuum pump 328 is coupled to and controlled by a control circuit 324. In this form, the control circuit 324 monitors the temperature in the merchandise storage area 308 and activates the vacuum pump 328 to increase or decrease the partial vacuum to modify the insulation characteristics of the insulation compartment 310 during transport in response to the monitored temperature).
Kim as modified fails to teach a temperature sensor configured to output a temperature signal indicative of a temperature of the interior space; a pressure sensor configured to output a pressure signal indicative of a pressure in the interior space; and a controller configured to receive the temperature signal and the pressure signal, and activate the vacuum system to create a vacuum within the interior space when the temperature of the interior space is less than or equal to a set point temperature, however Winkle teaches that it is a known method in the art of coolers to include a temperature sensor configured to output a temperature signal indicative of a temperature of the interior space; a pressure sensor configured to output a pressure signal indicative of a pressure in the interior space; and a controller configured to receive the temperature signal and the pressure signal, and control the vacuum system of the cooler based on temperature signals from a temperature sensor to achieve desired temperature conditions within the interior space of the cooler. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the cooler based on real-time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reprogram the controller of the cooler of Kim as modified by Winkle and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the cooler based on real-time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Kim
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified discloses the cooler of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
an evaporator fan positioned within the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the interior space to the refrigerant; and
a condenser fan positioned outside the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the refrigerant to the ambient atmosphere.
Tollet teaches further comprising:
an evaporator fan positioned within the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the interior space to the refrigerant (Fig. 4 of Tollet depicts fan 64 positioned within the freezer box 4; Col. 4-5, lines 66-67 and 1, Cooling and circulation means 60 preferably comprises an evaporator coil 62 and at least one air fan 64 associated with coil 2; Further, the fan 64 of Tollet has the same structure as the claimed evaporator fan and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed); and
a condenser fan positioned outside the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the refrigerant to the ambient atmosphere (Fig. 3 of Tollet depicts condensing fan 68 to be positioned outside of freezer box 4; Col. 4, lines 44-46, a condenser coil and corresponding condenser fan 68 which remain outside of cover 6 when cooling and circulation means 60 is received in port 54; Further, the condensing fan 68 of Tollet has the same structure as the claimed condenser fan and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Kim as modified fails to teach an evaporator fan positioned within the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the interior space to the refrigerant; and a condenser fan positioned outside the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the refrigerant to the ambient atmosphere, however Tollet teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression coolers to include an evaporator fan positioned within the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the interior space to the refrigerant; and a condenser fan positioned outside the cooler and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the refrigerant to the ambient atmosphere. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the cooler to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim as modified by Tollet and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the cooler to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Tollet and Winkle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (WO 2017071628), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified discloses the cooler of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the refrigeration system based at least in part on the temperature signal and the pressure signal.
Xu teaches wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the refrigeration system and the vacuum system based at least in part on the temperature signal and the pressure signal (Fig. 2, container 10; Fig. 3, main controller 3011, temperature sensor 103, pressure sensor 104; Pg. 5, Further, in the specific implementation of the present invention, the storage box 10 is further provided with a temperature sensor 103 for detecting the internal temperature of the storage box 10, and the temperature sensor 103 is connected with the main controller 3011. When the internal temperature of the storage box 10 is not within the set threshold range, the temperature sensor 103 generates an induction signal and transmits the sensing signal to the main controller 3011, the main controller 3011 processes the sensing signal and transmits the processed sensing signal to the cooling sheet control circuit 3014, and the cooling sheet control circuit 3014 controls the processed signal according to the received processed signal. The cooling sheet 303 operates. In other words, when the internal temperature of the storage box 10 is within the set threshold range, the cooling sheet 303 is not in operation and is in a standby state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reprogram the controller of the cooler of Kim as modified to wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the refrigeration system based at least in part on the temperature signal and the pressure signal as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide real-time monitoring of internal temperature and internal pressure so that power consumption can be reduced (Xu, Pg. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified discloses the cooler of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the controller is configured to:
compare the temperature of the interior space to the set point temperature (Xu, Pg. 5, In other words, when the internal temperature of the storage box 10 is within the set threshold range, the cooling sheet 303 is not in operation and is in a standby state),
operate the refrigeration system when the temperature of the interior space is greater than the set point temperature (Xu, Pg. 5, When the internal temperature of the storage box 10 is not within the set threshold range, the temperature sensor 103 generates an induction signal and transmits the sensing signal to the main controller 3011, the main The controller 3011 processes the sensing signal and transmits the processed sensing signal to the cooling sheet control circuit 3014, and the cooling sheet control circuit 3014 controls the processed signal according to the received processed signal. The cooling sheet 303 operates), and
deactivate the refrigeration system when the temperature of the interior space is less than or equal to the set point temperature (Xu, Pg. 5, In other words, when the internal temperature of the storage box 10 is within the set threshold range, the cooling sheet 303 is not in operation and is in a standby state). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Tollet, Winkle, and Xu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sugar et al. (US Patent No. 10,240,861), hereinafter Sugar.
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified discloses the cooler of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller, and wherein the pressure sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller.
Sugar teaches wherein the temperature sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller, and wherein the pressure sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller (Fig. 2, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) transceiver 70, temperature sensor 72; Col. 4, lines 4-10 and 31-35, FIG. 2 shows that the monitor 12 may include a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) via a BLE transceiver 70 and a temperature sensor 72 configured to measure the temperature inside the cold storage device. The temperature sensor 72 may either be connected directly to the monitor 12 via a cable connection 73, or by way of a wireless connection such as that provided by the BLE transceiver 70… Another potential use for the BLE transceiver 70 is to read measurement data from one or more external wireless sensors such as temperature, humidity, or air pressure sensors that support the BLE protocol).
Kim as modified fails to teach wherein the temperature sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller, and wherein the pressure sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller, however Sugar teaches that it is a known method in the art of sensing in refrigerated compartments to include wherein the temperature sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller, and wherein the pressure sensor communicates wirelessly with the controller. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide system information between the device and other user electronics to improve user friendliness (Sugar, Col. 8, lines 28-35)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim as modified by Sugar and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide system information between the device and other user electronics to improve user friendliness (Sugar, Col. 8, lines 28-35).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Tollet and Winkle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conrad et al. (US Patent No. 9,341,403), hereinafter Conrad.
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified discloses the cooler of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery pack is a portable power tool battery pack that is interchangeable with at least one power tool other than the cooler.
Conrad teaches wherein the battery pack is a portable power tool battery pack that is interchangeable with at least one power tool other than the cooler (Fig. 15, cooler 200, battery pack 260; Col. 5, lines 6-14, the battery pack 260 is configured as a 12-volt power tool battery pack including three lithium-ion battery cells. Alternatively, the battery pack 260 may include fewer or more battery cells to yield any of a number of different output voltages (e.g., 14.4 volts, 18 volts, etc.). Additionally or alternatively, the battery cells may include chemistries other than lithium-ion such as, for example, nickel cadmium, nickel metal-hydride, or the like; Further, the teachings of Conrad which described the battery pack to be “12-volt power tool battery pack” as least imply wherein the battery pack is a portable power tool battery pack that is interchangeable with at least one power tool other than the cooler since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Kim as modified fails to teach wherein the battery pack is a portable power tool battery pack that is interchangeable with at least one power tool other than the cooler, however Conrad teaches that it is a known method in the art of coolers to include wherein the battery pack is a portable power tool battery pack that is interchangeable with at least one power tool other than the cooler. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. allowing the cooler to be integrated into an existing product line to improve overall user friendliness). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim as modified by Conrad and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the cooler to be integrated into an existing product line to improve overall user friendliness.
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified discloses the cooler of claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery pack is supported by a battery receptacle on the lid (Fig. 15, cooler 200, battery pack 260, receptacle 255, cover 250, bottom cover 225; Col. 4-5, lines 59-67 and 1-5, With reference to FIGS. 15 and 16, the cooler 200 further includes a battery receptacle 255 pivotably coupled to the bottom cover 225 and a battery pack 260 removably received within the battery receptacle 255. Particularly, the battery receptacle 255 is pivotably coupled to the bottom cover 225 at a location within the recess 240 of the bottom cover 225. As such, the battery receptacle 255 may be pivoted between a first or deployed position (FIGS. 15 and 16), in which the battery pack 260 is accessible and therefore removable from the battery receptacle 255, and a second or retracted position (FIG. 18), in which the battery pack 260 is contained within the recess 240 and therefore inaccessible for removal from the receptacle 255. To first access the battery pack 260, the top cover 250 must be opened as shown in FIGS. 15 and 16).
Kim as modified fails to teach wherein the battery pack is supported by a battery receptacle on the lid, however Conrad teaches that it is a known method in the art of coolers to include wherein the battery pack is supported by a battery receptacle on the lid. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. transferring electrical power from the battery pack to the cooler to carry out system operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim as modified by Conrad and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of transferring electrical power from the battery pack to the cooler to carry out system operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, specifically the arguments that “The vacuum system of Winkle is used to adjust an insulation value of the insulation compartment 310 based on a temperature of a separate internal storage space 308. In contrast, the vacuum system of Kim is used to keep rice fresh within the internal compartment 100. There is no reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Winkle and Kim because the combination does not suggest that pulling a vacuum in the internal storage space in response to a temperature measurement of the interior space itself that is less than or equal to a set point temperature would accomplish anything desirable. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to modify the Kim, Tollet, Xu combination with the teachings of Winkle as the Examiner contends. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1”, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed July 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Additionally, Kim fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 because the Examiner has mischaracterized the disclosure of Kim when formulating the rejection for independent claim 1. On page 5 of the Office action, the Examiner relies on the power supply unit 440 of Kim to allegedly disclose a battery pack configured to supply electrical current to both the compressor and the vacuum pump. However, the power supply unit 440 of Kim only provides power to the vacuum pump. Kim is silent to any teaching regarding the power supply unit 440 supplying power to both the compressor and the vacuum pump, as required by claim 1. Therefore, Kim fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Specifically, the claims only require the battery pack to be “configured to supply electrical current to both the compressor and the vacuum pump to operate the refrigeration system and the vacuum system” which is met by the power supply 440 of Kim as although Kim does not explicitly disclose what supplies the power for the compressor of the refrigeration system of Kim, the power supply 440 is capable of supplying power to both the vacuum system and the refrigeration system since it has been held when the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
The rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-3 and 5-8 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 September 14th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights