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
All objections and many 35 USC 112 have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 in response to Office Action 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amendment (page 8, last para). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that that both secondary prior art Cope (Figs 1 and 21) and CopeGB (Figs 1 and 13a) have the locking bar’s handle/manipulation or gripping portion within the wall’s carry handle opening, so the resultant combination properly does have both the manipulation portion and gripping portion thereof within the carry handle opening, as claimed. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below. Applicant also mentions one, seamless carrying handle and the manipulation portion not projecting into the opening, but the first is not a claim term, and the second contradicts the claim amendment (i.e. merges within is the same as saying it does project into).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 35, “the first axis” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-2,4,7-8,10,14,16,20-21,30-31,33-35 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090151226 by Apps et al. (hereinafter “Apps”) in view of EP 2548809 issued to Cope et al. (hereinafter “Cope”) in view of GB 2452750 issued to Cope et al. (hereinafter “CopeGB”).
Regarding claim 1, Apps teaches a collapsible crate (Title, “collapsible container” is shown as a crate, Fig 1; wherein examiner notes that though an embodiment may use concrete to prevent collapse [0038], or have a ring Fig 1, those are not limiting embodiments because the container [0026] "could be configured for some use other than as a trap", wherein the trap use case may require the concrete or ring. In other words, even with no concrete 70, and no ring 22 blocking collapse, the container (Title) still accomplishes the principal function of prior art Apps which is “side wall and end wall are pivotable between a collapsed position and a use position relative to the base” (Abstract) and remain [0040] “selectively foldable”) comprising
a base member (Fig 1, 12), a front wall pivotally articulated along a bottom edge thereof to a front edge of the base member (Figs 1 & 12, a front wall that pivotally articulates along a bottom edge thereof and along a back edge of base 12 is side wall 16), a back wall pivotally articulated along a bottom edge thereof to a back edge of the base member (Figs 1 & 12, a back wall that pivotally articulates along a bottom edge thereof and along a back edge of base 12 is side wall 14);
a first side wall (Figs 1 & 8, a first side wall is end wall 18) pivotally articulated ([0027] [0038] “pivot”) along a bottom edge thereof to a first side edge of the base member (Figs 2D & 8 show the pivot along a bottom edge thereof the wall and along a first side edge of the base 12) and
a second side wall (Figs 1 & 8, a second side wall is end wall 20) pivotally articulated ([0027] [0038] “pivot”) along a bottom edge thereof to a second side edge of the base member (Figs 2D & 8 show the pivot along a bottom edge thereof the wall and along a second side edge of the base 12); and
said crate configurable between an erect position at which the four walls are disposed upright (Fig 1, all four walls upright), and a collapsed position at which the four walls are disposed parallel over the base member (Figs 8 & 12, all four walls collapsed and parallel to each other and the base, [0040] “parallel”),
But Apps does not explicitly teach a particular locking mechanism that includes a rotating handle (examiner notes for example to show similarity of arts, that in Apps Fig 2D, a locking mechanism is at a top portion of each side wall 18 and 20 and arrests edges of the front wall 16 and back wall 14, are tongues 47 that are shown locked in with openings 49, [0036]. The following combination would not interfere with this.).
Cope, however, teaches a similar foldable crate comprising:
a locking mechanism disposed at a top portion of each of the side walls, configured for arresting engagement side edges of a side wall and neighboring side edges of the front wall and back wall, respectively (Figs 18-21, a locking mechanism is shown as comprising at least a protrusion 32 locking with a receiving element 30 at a top portion of four walls, of side edges of each side wall to either front or back wall, [0046]);
the locking mechanism (Figs 20b, 32 locking in 30) comprises
a locking bar pivotally along its longitudinal axis and extending within a locking bar receiving groove disposed across a top portion of a side wall ([0047] “protrusion 32 is provided on a second pair of opposed walls 16” (i.e. two pairs of two 32s) and “In order to remove the protrusion 32 from the receiving element 30, an operator must specifically rotate the protrusion”, and a bar having this protrusion is shown, therefore though a receiving groove is not shown, a locking bar (unlabeled) extending from 32 is necessarily shown to pivotally rotate within a receiving groove of 16, at top portion of a side wall 16, Fig 21, because the bar must attach somehow and pivotally rotate as disclosed in a suitable structure otherwise it cannot be used to collapse the wall after detaching from wall the front or back wall. The groove is further evidenced as necessarily existing because the bar itself is “on” the wall as disclosed [0046] “32 is provided on… walls 16”. In other words though no receiving groove is disclosed, it must necessarily exist in order for the bar to function as disclosed.);
the locking bar (Figs 19 & 21, the bar extending from 32) comprising
at each end a radially projecting locking tab (Figs 19-21, a tab is protrusion 32, of which there are two, each radially projecting from one of two bar ends) extending beyond a side edge portion of the side wall (Fig 21, 32 extends beyond a side edge of the side wall 16), and a locking bar manipulation portion (Fig 21, a portion of the bar is rotatably manipulated (see [0047] above)) for rotatably manipulating the locking bar about a longitudinal axis thereof, between a locked position (Fig 20b) and an unlocked position (Fig 20a);
each of the front wall and the back wall comprises at a top side edge portion a locking tab arresting portion (Figs 20-21, [0047], a front wall 14 and a back wall 14 each have a locking tab arresting portion which is receiving element 30) configured with locking tab path and a locking tab obstruction arrangement (30 comprises a path which is a cavity of 30, and an obstruction arrangement which is ribs 30a, 30b), wherein at an erect position (of the container walls) an opening of the locking tab path extends opposite the locking tab (Fig 20a-20b shows a wall-erected position of the container wherein an opening of/into the path is shown extending in an opposite direction (away from) the direction that tab 32 extends in); and wherein
at the locked position (Fig 20b) the locking tab (32) is obstructed and prevented from displacing through the opening of the locking tab path (Fig 20b, 32 is shown prevented from moving through the opening of/into the path), and at the unlocked position (Fig 20a) the locking tab is free to displace through the opening of the locking tab path (Fig 20a, 32 is shown movable through the path opening), wherein
the locking bar manipulation portion is a handle-like portion laterally extending from the bar (Figs 19 & 21, the bar manipulation portion is shown to be a handle extending laterally from the bar) and disposed external to an outside surface of the side wall ([0046] “32 is provided on… walls 16” necessarily means that 32’s manipulation portion is on – meaning disposed external to an outside surface of – said walls), and configured with a gripping portion (Figs 19 & 21, a gripping portion of the manipulation portion is shown, at the bottom from viewer perspective).
The purpose of a rotating locking mechanism in the side wall is to increase ease of folding and deploying by having a more convenient handle for leverage versus the user pulling to overcome friction of locking. 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 side wall of Apps with a rotating locking mechanism in it as taught by Cope in order to advantageously gain mechanical advantage by having a rotating handle with locking tab act as a pivoting lever over Apps pulling/pushing through friction.
But Apps/Cope does not explicitly teach a particular arrangement of the bar gripping portion of its manipulation portion in a handle opening of the wall it is on.
CopeGB, however, teaches a similar foldable crate comprising:
at a locked position (of the container) a gripping portion (Fig 13A, page 16, lines 1-2, a gripping portion 286 is shown in a locked position, wherein “manual operation of the lever portion 266 to disengage”) extends within a carrying handle opening (Fig 13A, a carrying handle opening of a crate is an opening proximal the lower “X” label of the axis and the 286 label, from viewer perspective, necessarily capable of allowing carrying/handling therethrough) of a crate (Fig 13A, 286 extends within at least in a top portion of said opening).
The purpose of placing the bar gripping portion for the user within an opening for the user to handle carrying the crate is to maximize convenience by having the locking function in where the user’s hand is already going to go in order to carry the crate. 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 side wall opening of Apps and the bar of Cope with a gripping portion of the bar in the side wall opening as taught by CopeGB in order to advantageously increase ease of use by centralizing/combining the uses of the carry opening and the bar gripping portion to one use location.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the reversibly collapsible container of Apps reversibly pivotally folding as cited, modified with the locking mechanism of Cope on the front and back wall of Apps locking with the side walls of Apps, wherein the mechanism’s gripping portion is then modified by CopeGB to be in the wall carry opening of Apps/Cope. In other words, CopeGB simply places the locking mechanism of Cope – tab, bar of tab, bar manipulation portion, bar handle-like portion, bar gripping portion, side wall tab path and obstruction arrangement of obstructions – to the corresponding side walls (path and obstruction) and front and back wall (locking mechanism) of Apps.
The above combination enables the arrangement to be capable of snap locking against the opening (satisfying the claim limitation “wherein at the locked position, the locking bar is arrested by a snap-lock arrangement snappingly that is arrestable against the carrying handle opening”); and since the gripping portion is part of the manipulation portion and already “within the carry handle opening” (previously claimed), the manipulation portion is too (satisfying the claim limitation “wherein at the locked position of the locking bar, the manipulation portion of the locking bar merges within the carrying handle opening”). In other words, the combination reads on the amendment, as in Applicant Figure 2a where manipulation portion 68 is “within” the opening, by having both portions within the opening and having the arrangement that is capable of snap-locking against the opening.
Regarding claim 2, Apps further teaches the front wall (Figs 1 & 12, 16) is pivotally articulated along said bottom edge thereof to a top edge of a raised front segment extending at said front edge of the base member (Fig 12, 16 is shown pivoted in its bottom edge via a pivoting hinge pin 48 in a raised front edge segment of base 12 which is defined by h2), and at the back wall (Figs 1 & 12, 14) is pivotally articulated along said bottom edge thereof to a top edge of a raised back segment extending at said back edge of the base member (Fig 12, 14 is shown pivoted in its bottom edge via a pivoting hinge pin 55 in a raised back edge segment of base 12 which is defined by h1).
Regarding claim 4, Apps further teaches the side walls (18, 20) are of equal height (Figs 2A & 2D, 18 is shown at an equal height as 20 because 68 is on both sides, meaning a height of 68 is the height of the other 68 because it’s the identical element, and because a top shared surface of all the walls is shown flush (which they must be for the ring 22 to fit)), and the back wall is shorter than the front wall (Figs 1, 2A & 12 show that the erected height of the back wall 14 is shorter than that of the front wall 16, wherein their pivot pins 55 sit in the bottom of their slot 50 and they share an equal top edge, but the front wall 16 pin sits lower than the back wall 14 pin. In other words, the front wall is shown extending longer than the back wall, so the back wall is shorter in erected height), however wherein at the erect position the four walls extend to the same height, with an equally leveled, coextending, continuous top edge (Figs 2A & 2D, the four walls extend to the same height, and share an equally leveled continuous top edge (wherein “continuous” in light of Applicant’s definition includes gaps/seams because the walls are not one piece integral together)).
Regarding claim 7, Apps further teaches the raised back segment (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h1) is higher than ([0045] “h1 is greater than the height h2”) the raised front segment (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h2).
Regarding claim 8, Apps further teaches a thickness of the base member (Fig 12, 12) plus a thickness of a side wall (18 or 20) plus a thickness of the back wall (14) plus a thickness of the front wall (16) are equal to a height of (Fig 12 shows the thickness of 12 plus 18 or 20 plus 14 plus 16 as equal in height (while collapsed) to the raised back segment, wherein the segment height includes a portion of 12 proximal above the label h1 (e.g. thereby sharing an imaginary straight line extended from a top surface of 14 through the segment)) raised back segment (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h1) or to a height of the raised front segment (not chosen).
Regarding claim 10, Apps further teaches the raised front segment (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h2, which includes the remaining portion above) has the same height as (both segments are shown at the maximum height of 12 therefore are the same height) the raised back segment (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h1, which includes the remaining portion above),
But Apps/Cope/CopeGB does not explicitly teach a particular size/proportion of wall height to width of the crate or a side wall thereof.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to change size/proportion wherein a height of the front wall plus a height of the back wall is equal to or less than a width of one of the side walls for storing a wider variety of articles because Applicant has not disclosed that the walls being erected in this particular size/proportion provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the size/proportion because the walls collapse to be substantially laid flat in the same way. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the size/proportion of Apps’s walls of the crate to obtain the invention as claimed herein, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Also the same reasoning applies to changing shape (e.g. square box to rectangular box). MPEP 2144.04 IV-B.
Regarding claim 14, Apps further teaches at the collapsed position the back wall and the front wall are coplanar and disposed over the side walls (Fig 12, [0045], walls are all “parallel” to the base 12, therefore all in parallel planes with each other in the collapsed position shown, and the front wall 16 is shown coplanar with at least a sidewall, and the front wall is coplanar then with the back wall),
But Apps/Cope/CopeGB does not explicitly teach a particular size/proportion of wall height to a width of one of the crate’s sidewalls.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to change size/proportion wherein the height of the front wall plus the height of the back wall is equal to or less than width of side walls for storing a wider variety of articles because Applicant has not disclosed that the walls being erected in this particular size/proportion provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the size/proportion because the walls collapse to be substantially laid flat in the same way. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the size/proportion of Apps’s walls of the crate to obtain the invention as claimed herein, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Also the same reasoning applies to changing shape of the crate’s walls (e.g. square box to rectangular box). MPEP 2144.04 IV-B.
Regarding claim 16, Apps further teaches a height of the front wall (Fig 1, 16) plus a height of the raised front segment (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h2) is equal to a height of the back wall (Fig 1, 14) plus a height of the raised back (Fig 12, the portion of 12 defined by h1) segment (Figs 2A & 2D, the added heights are shown equal, because the four walls extend to the same height, and share an equally leveled continuous top edge (wherein “continuous” in light of Applicant’s definition includes gaps/seams because the walls are not one piece integral together)).
Regarding claim 20, Apps further teaches side edges of the front wall (Fig 1, 16) and the back wall (Fig 1, 14) are configured with a longitudinal lip, whereby at the erect position (Fig 1) the longitudinal lips overlap over a neighboring side edge of a neighboring side wall (Fig 1, longitudinal lips of 16 and 14 are flanges 51 shown overlapping side edges of side walls 18 and 20, [0027]).
Regarding claim 21, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches a cross section of the locking tab (Cope, Figs 18-21, 32) has a first axis and a second axis intersecting said first axis, and wherein the first axis is longer than the second axis (Cope, Fig 20a, a first axis is the longest dimension, since 32 is shown elongate, and a second axis is perpendicular to it), and at the locked position said second axis faces the opening of the locking tab path and at the unlocked position said second axis faces the opening of the locking tab path (Cope, Figs 20a-20b, the second axis “faces” the path opening of 30 in both locking (Fig 20b) and unlocking (Fig 20a) position; examiner notes the claim term “faces” is very broad since an axis is a two-dimensional line that has no face/surface (i.e. is not a plane)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 30, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches the locking tab obstruction arrangement (Cope, Figs 18-21, ribs 30a, 30b) comprises at least one locking tab obstructing member projecting into the locking tab path (Cope, Fig 20b, a first obstructing member of the arrangement, and a second obstructing member, are shown facing one another from where 32 is shown contacting 30a (first) to where 32 contacts 30b (second). The contact areas are shown as rounded corners/protrusions, thereby obstructing the tab 32, as shown in Fig 20b, as a “tight fit”, [0046]). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 31, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches the locking tab obstruction arrangement (Cope, Figs 18-21, ribs 30a, 30b) comprises a first locking tab obstructing member and a second locking tab obstructing member, facing one another (Cope, Fig 20b, a first obstructing member of the arrangement, and a second obstructing member, are shown facing one another from where 32 is shown contacting 30a (first) to where 32 contacts 30b (second). The contact areas are shown as rounded corners/protrusions, thereby obstructing the tab 32, as shown in Fig 20b, as a “tight fit”, [0046]). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 33, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches a diameter (not of a circle, in light of Applicant’s disclosure “diameter” just means a dimension) of the locking tab (Cope, Figs 18-21, 32) is less than (Cope, Fig 20b, a dimension of 32 is shown less than a dimension of the opening in order to fit inside the opening as shown) a width (not a particular direction, in light of Applicant’s disclosure “width” just means a dimension) of the opening of the locking tab path (Cope, Figs 18-21, the opening to the cavity of 30). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 34, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches a width (not a particular direction, in light of Applicant’s disclosure “width” just means a dimension) of the locking tab (Cope, Figs 18-21, 32) is similar or less than (Cope, Fig 20b, a dimension of the tab 32 is similar to (wherein similar does not mean same) a dimension of the bar) a diameter (not of a circle, in light of Applicant’s disclosure “diameter” just means a dimension (i.e. the whole bar is not disclosed having a diameter except for portions being cylindrical, like to pivot)) of the locking bar (Cope, Figs 18-21, the bar extending from 32). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 35, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches a length of the locking tab (Cope, Figs 18-21, 32) along the first axis is greater than (Cope, Fig 20b, a length of the tab 32 is shown greater than a height of the arresting portion 30, because it is shown longer than the opening in order to be irremovable) a height (not a particular direction, in light of Applicant’s disclosure “height” just means a dimension) of the arresting portion (Cope, Figs 18-21, 30). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 38, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches the locking bar is configured for simultaneous locking a side wall with the neighboring back wall and front wall (Cope, Fig 21, the bar of tab 32 can simultaneously lock a side wall to the back wall and the front wall, because a 32 is on each end of the bar, [0046], and the capability assumes that both the back and front walls are erected first). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 39, Apps further teaches an interconnecting arrangement is configured between the side edges of the two side walls, and the respective neighboring side edges of the back wall and front wall (Fig 1, an interconnecting arrangement of the two wide wall edges is formed of longitudinal lips of 16 and 14 that are flanges 51 shown overlapping side edges of side walls 18 and 20, [0027]).
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090151226 by Apps et al. (hereinafter “Apps”) in view of EP 2548809 issued to Cope et al. (hereinafter “Cope”) in view of GB 2452750 issued to Cope et al. (hereinafter “CopeGB”) as evidenced by US Pub 20170233183 by Chenvainu et al. (hereinafter “Chenvainu”).
Regarding claim 26, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches at the locked position the locking bar (Cope, 32) is arrested, to thereby prevent unintentional displacement from the locked position (Cope, [0046], “a tight fit is formed between the protrusion 32 and ribs 30a, 30b, such that the protrusion 32 is held securely in place”).
But Apps/Cope/CopeGB do not explicitly teach the arrested/fit being a snap-type.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Cope arresting “tight fit”, to being a “snap fit” as evidenced by Chenvainu ([0079] wherein a structural element lists equivalent fastening methods like “press-fits” which is like Cope’s tight fit and “snap-fits” which is like being snappingly arrested as claimed), as it is no more than simple substitution of one fastening type for another that is known in the art for securing/locking to prevent unintentional displacement and would only produce predictable results. MPEP 2144.06 II. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. no further explicit reason is disclosed for snapping type over arrested locking).
Regarding claim 36, Apps/Cope/CopeGB further teaches the locking bar is received within the locking bar receiving groove at the top portion of the side wall (see full citation and reasoning in parent claim 1; Fig 21, the bar of 32 is necessarily received within a groove, [0046] “on” the side wall, and is shown at the top portion of the side wall).
But Apps/Cope/CopeGB do not explicitly teach the receiving fit to be snap-type.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Cope’s bar which is “on” the side wall meaning received in a groove (see parent claim 1 [0046] citation), to being a “snap fit” as evidenced by Chenvainu ([0079] wherein a structural element lists equivalent fastening methods like “press-fits” which is like Cope’s receiving fit and “snap-fits” which is like being snappingly received as claimed), as it is no more than simple substitution of one fastening type for another that is known in the art for securing/locking to prevent unintentional displacement and would only produce predictable results. MPEP 2144.06 II. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. no further explicit reason is disclosed for snapping type over arrested locking).
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 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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 28 January 2026