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
Prior objections and 35 USC 112 have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 in response to Office Action 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding all independent claims, Applicant summarily believes there is criticality to the instant application’s approximate ranges over the prior art Gogola that are based on and between standard can sizes and their standard sized can end elements (between 206 and 209 size can ends). Examiner summarily points out that standards themselves are results of optimizations, so modifying one particular element (e.g. the pour panel/opening/area) for balance of the elements to function together (e.g. at least the tab’s material type, geometry of shape and relative placement for strength to open the pour panel based at least on its depth of score line, width, length and thickness) is obvious at least based on POSITA engineering design/scientific method. Please see detailed responses below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant again argues that each optimization rationale is mere allegation not pointing to any supported motivation such as suggestion from the prior art (page 8 para last). Examiner points out that each optimization is a change of shape too, to which Applicant has not responded, and that each optimization has a cited advantageous reason from the prior art. Please see Office Action page 11.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that examiner assumes a POSITA would not be capable of thinking how each specific range affects each other so would not vary each one individually, as it appears in the action to Applicant (page 10 para 2). Then Applicant states how the elements effect each other (page 10 para 3). Examiner points out the effects stated are known to a POSITA, so nothing was assumed. Also even if it appears to the Applicant that the ranges are cited as varied individually, examiner points out that does not automatically prevent a POSITA from making the collective change of parameters. Again, all ranges are properly justified. Examiner submits that a POSITA knows at least all the characteristic interplay effects argued, and more since a POSITA is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and it was held that the final step [of the claimed invention] is merely the logical result of common sense application of the maxim ‘try, try again’. MPEP 2143 E.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues more specifically that the collective concept of modifying all the range parameters has not been taught so the rejection is improper (page 11 para 1, page 13 #2). Examiner points out that since every range was considered in relation to the element they define, and every element is cited in this one single prior art, the collective concept is in fact already present, so no additional reference is needed.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the one motivation presented is oversimplified and does not exactly apply to the range cited (page 11 para 4). Examiner points out only one motivation is required, and that optimization takes into account the argued parameters. Please see that a POSITA is not an automaton, and optimization includes the argued combinations, since the final step of the claimed invention is merely the logical result of common sense application of the maxim ‘try, try again’. MPEP 2143 E. In other words, a POSITA would find and discover the need to balance combinations in the process of optimization towards one motivation.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues hindsight was used because examiner used the claims to cite prior art against (page 12 para 1). Examiner points out 35 USC 103 obviousness is properly produced in the format presented in the action without hindsight. An analysis could not be produced without using the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that a POSITA would not seek to modify a standard 206 into – proximally – a standard 209, and lists risks associated with doing so (page 14 #3). Examiner points out Office Action page 11 full of rational motivations. Risks are with everything, so Applicant would need to show actual denigration evidence disclosed in the prior art. Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. MPEP 2145 X-D.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues a changed proportion (page 15 #1). Examiner points out change of proportion is an obvious rationale. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Applicant argues optimization motivations and combination concept as for claim 1 (pages 16-18). Examiner points to the responses above.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues the newly amended frangible residual is not taught by the prior art (page 17). Examiner points to Gogola [0037]. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 21 and 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, last lines “the pour opening has an area” should read “the second area”.
Regarding claim 24, “wherein the pour opening” has two white spaces. Should read “wherein the pour opening”.
Regarding claims 21 and 25, “0.0004” should read “0.004”. Since 0.0004 doesn’t exist.
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, 4-10, 12-13, 15-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20190112096 by Gogola et al. (hereinafter “Gogola”).
Regarding claim 1, Gogola teaches a can end (Fig 1A, 100) comprising:
a center panel (Fig 1A, 106) having a diameter (necessarily has);
a deboss panel formed on the center panel (Fig 1A, 116), a clearance distance between a portion of the deboss panel (Fig 1A, 116) and a peripheral edge of the center panel (Fig 1B, a peripheral edge of a surface 118 of the center panel, and shows at least a horizontal and/or vertical clearance distance from the center panel’s edge of 118 to an edge of deboss panel 116);
a pour panel (Fig 1A, 120) formed on the center panel defined by the score (Fig 1A, 122), the score having a score length and a score width (necessarily has length and width), the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio (necessarily has), the pour panel to provide
a pour opening for the center panel (Fig 1A, an opening covered by 120 defined by 122 (i.e. when the can is opened)).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific score length to width ratio (i.e. an ellipse, defining the pour opening), a specific clearance distance, a specific pour opening area (i.e. which is also the pour panel area), or a particularly specific center panel diameter (Gogola disclose [0030], 202 can end size (diameter 5.398 cm or 2 and 2 sixteenths inches), 206 can end size (diameter 6.033 cm or 2 and 6 sixteenths inches), 209 can end size (diameter 6.509 cm or 2 and 9 sixteenths inches), which also necessarily applies the standard to all can end elements).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at
a center panel diameter of between approximately 1.88 and 1.92 inches, recognizing that a decrease in central panel diameter is directly correlated to increased cost savings through light-weighting (Gogola, [0029] “smaller diameter ends to provide cost savings through light-weighting”), which is a desirable characteristic, and
the clearance distance is between approximately 0.04 inches and 0.05 inches, in order to increase in “stiffness of the pour panel to improve openability of the pour panel” increasing ease of use (Gogola, [0033]), which is a desirable characteristic,
the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio of between approximately 1.40 and 1.45 and the score length is between approximately 1.0 inch and 1.1 inches and the score width is between approximately 0.71 inches and 0.74 inches, recognizing that an increase in score length is directly correlated to increasing ease of drinking and pouring (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”) in order to increase ease of pouring and drinking from different can rotation tilt angles, which is a desirable characteristic.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Furthermore 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 4, Gogola further teaches the center panel defines a non-frangible hinge between a first end of the score and a second end of the score (Fig 1A, 124), the non-frangible hinge having a length (Figs 4-5 disclose distances proximal the tab 404 and 504 as about “2 millimeters” for scale (in general not specific of the drawing)).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific hinge length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at a hinge length of between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.3 inches, recognizing that a decrease in length is directly correlated to an increase in ease of handling due to less force required to push the panel open (i.e. lower hinge stiffness) in order to increase ease of handling, 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.
Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 5, Gogola further teaches the center panel (Fig 1A, 106) has an area of between approximately 2.80 square inches and 2.85 square inches (an area of the full center panel is necessarily this range, because examiner can and does interpret the area as smaller than the full panel. The center panel of parent claim 1 has a claimed diameter of at least 1.88 inches, meaning the full area of the center panel is greater than 5 square inches. Therefore an arbitrary area is claimed, so examiner must choose, and whatever the area is covers the range).
Regarding claim 6, Gogola further teaches a tab (Fig 1A, 104) to pivot relative to the center panel to apply an opening force to rupture the score and displace the pour panel relative to the center panel to provide the pour opening, the tab including: a lift end (Fig 2B, 202) and a nose spaced from the lift end (Fig 2B, 204); a first cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 236 of cleats 128), the first cleat being offset relative to a center axis of the tab, the first cleat to concentrate the opening force in a first direction that is non-parallel relative to the center axis when the tab is lifted relative to the center panel of the can end between an initial position and a first angular position ([0004]); and a second cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 238 of cleats 128), the second cleat being offset relative to the center axis of the tab, the second cleat to concentrate the opening force in a second direction that is non-parallel to the center axis when the tab is lifted relative to the center panel between the first angular position and a second angular position greater than the first angular position, the first direction being different than the second direction ([0004]), wherein the first cleat is to concentrate the opening force to a first side of the center axis when the tab is lifted between the initial position and the first angular position (claim 14 of prior art, exact copy).
Regarding claim 7, Gogola further teaches the first angular position is approximately between 40 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the center panel (claim 15 of prior art, exact copy).
Regarding claim 8, Gogola further teaches the second cleat is to concentrate the opening force to a second side of the center axis when the tab is lifted between the first angular position and the second angular position, the first side being opposite the second side (claim 16 of prior art, exact copy), wherein the second angular position is approximately between 60 degrees and 80 degrees relative to the center panel (claim 17 of prior art, exact copy).
Regarding claim 9, Gogola teaches a 206 size can end (Fig 1A, 100; [0030] “tabs disclosed herein may be used with 209 size can ends (6.509 cm); 207.5 size can ends (6.271 cm); 206 size can ends”) comprising:
a center panel (106), the center panel having a first area; and
a deboss panel formed on the center panel (Fig 1A, 116);
a pour panel formed on the center panel (120),
the pour panel to define a pour opening (Fig 1A, an opening covered by 120 defined by score 122 (i.e. when the can is opened)) having a second area (necessarily has a pour area, of one of the standard grouped can component sizes like 206 or 209 like in the instant invention [0030]), wherein the pour panel has a score length and a score width (score 122 necessarily has a length and a width), and wherein a clearance distance between a portion of the deboss panel and a peripheral edge of the center panel (Fig 1B, a peripheral edge of a surface 118 of the center panel, and shows at least a horizontal and/or vertical clearance distance from the center panel’s edge of 118 to an edge of deboss panel 116).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific clearance distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at the clearance distance is between approximately 0.04 inches and 0.05 inches, recognizing that an decrease in clearance distance is directly correlated to an increase “stiffness of the pour panel to improve openability of the pour panel” (Gogola, [0033]) in order to increase 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.
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific area ratio between the center panel and pour opening (not the pour panel).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at a first area-to-second area ratio is approximately between 0.22 and 0.23, recognizing that a decrease in ratio is directly correlated to an increase in stacking stiffness for stronger stacking higher to save on limited horizontal transport area (i.e. more center panel less opening) in order to pack more efficiently when transporting or storing, 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.
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific score length or width.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at a score length of approximately 1.05 inches and a score width of approximately 0.735 inches, recognizing that an increase in one of those dimensions is directly correlated to an increase in pourable contents to accommodate a wider variety of users desired enjoyment from a particular angle (i.e. more length could mean a higher pour rate given a larger air gap behind, while more width could mean more laminar flow and more volume of pour) in order to increase enjoyment across users, 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.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Examiner notes that the claim limitation “the pour opening has an area approximately 95% of a pour-opening area of a standard 209-size can end” is already met by the analysis from the ranges claimed (i.e. the ranges claimed produce the claimed ~95%). In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify proportion, 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.
Regarding claim 10, Gogola does not explicitly teach that the first area is approximately (range claim because; [0026] of Applicant “approximately means that a specified value or dimension can be plus or minus 5% to 10% of its stated value or range, which itself is broad) 2.84 square inches (in2) and the second area is approximately 0.65 square inches (in2) (but does teach all the same standard can sizes as the instant invention [0030]).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific first area of the center panel or second area of the pour opening.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at the first area (an area of the center panel) is approximately 2.84 square inches and the second area (an area of the pour opening) is approximately 0.65 square inches, recognizing that
a smaller first area is directly correlated to an increase in packing efficiency into small storage spaces (e.g. retail refrigerator),
a larger second area is directly correlated to an increase in allowed contents pouring to accommodate a wider variety of users desired enjoyment, in order to increase user enjoyment across users and pack more efficiently when transporting or storing, which are desirable characteristics.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Furthermore 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 12, Gogola further teaches a tab (Fig 1A, 104) to move the pour panel from a sealed condition to a non-sealed condition (Figs 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 13, Gogola further teaches the tab includes: a lift end (Fig 2B, 202) and a nose opposite the lift end (Fig 2B, 204), the nose to at least partially extend over a pour panel (Fig 1A, 120) of the can end (Fig 1A, 204 over 120); a central webbing interposed between the lift end and the nose (Fig 2B, 206), the central webbing defining a hinge line about which the tab is to pivot away from a center panel of the can end when the tab is coupled to the can end (Fig 2B, 222); and a first cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 236 of cleats 128), the first cleat being offset relative to a first side of the center axis of the tab such that a longitudinal axis of the first cleat intersects the center axis at a first angle (Abstract, exact copy of last sentence).
Regarding claim 15, Gogola further teaches the first angle of the first cleat is approximately (range claim because; [0026] of Applicant “approximately means that a specified value or dimension can be plus or minus 5% to 10% of its stated value or range, which itself is broad) within plus or minus 5 degrees of the pivot angle ([0044] the first angle is “approximately 4 degrees greater than or less than the [pivot] angle”).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific tolerance of similarity.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at the first cleat is approximately within plus or minus 5 degrees of the pivot angle, recognizing that a decrease in angle shortens the contact area of the cleat to the pour panel thereby increasing stress concentration is directly correlated to making it easier to open from increased leverage in order to increase ease of opening, 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. Examiner also notes the claimed tolerance appears to be nothing more than a typical machinist’s tolerance (e.g. Machinery’s Handbook).
Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 16, Gogola further teaches a second cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 238 of cleats 128).
Regarding claim 17, Gogola further teaches the second cleat is formed on a second side of the center axis opposite the first side (Fig 2B, claim 16, second side is opposite first side).
Regarding claim 18, Gogola further teaches the second cleat is offset relative to the first side of the center axis of the tab such that a second longitudinal axis of the second cleat intersects the center axis at a second angle (claim 9, exact copy).
Regarding claim 19, Gogola further teaches the second angle is substantially equal to the first angle (claim 10, exact copy).
Regarding claim 20, Gogola further teaches the second angle is approximately within plus or minus 4 degrees of the pivot angle (claim 11, exact copy).
Regarding claim 21, Gogola teaches a can end (Fig 1A, 100) comprising:
a center panel (Fig 1A, 106) having a diameter (necessarily has),
the center panel defines a non-frangible hinge having a length (Fig 1A, 124 has a length);
a deboss panel formed on the center panel (Fig 1A, 116); and
a pour panel (Fig 1A, 120) formed on the center panel to provide a pour opening for the center panel (Fig 1A, an opening covered by 120 defined by 122 (i.e. when the can is opened)), the pour panel defined by a frangible score defining a perimeter of the pour opening (Fig 1A, “frangible score 122” defines pour opening perimeter), the frangible score having a score length and a score width (necessarily has both),
a frangible residual defined by a depth of the frangible score having a thickness of approximately between 0.003 inches and 0.0004 inches ([0037] “the score residual 130 of the illustrated example may be… 0.0032” inches depth).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific score length to width ratio (i.e. an ellipse, defining the pour opening), or a particularly specific center panel diameter (Gogola, [0030], 202 can end size (diameter 5.398 cm or 2 and 2 sixteenths inches), 206 can end size (diameter 6.033 cm or 2 and 6 sixteenths inches), 209 can end size (diameter 6.509 cm or 2 and 9 sixteenths inches)).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at
a center panel diameter of between approximately 1.88 and 1.92 inches, recognizing that a decrease in central panel diameter is directly correlated to increased cost savings through light-weighting (Gogola, [0029] “smaller diameter ends to provide cost savings through light-weighting”) in order to save cost, which is a desirable characteristic, and
a hinge length of between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.3 inches, recognizing that a decrease in length is directly correlated to an increase in ease of handling due to less force required to push the panel open (i.e. lower hinge stiffness) in order to increase ease of handling, 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.
Examiner further notes that the resultant modification yields the claimed invention via the score length is between approximately 1.0 inch and 1.1 inches and the score width is between approximately 0.71 inches and 0.74 inches (since the optimized score ratio rationale applies, and these claimed score length and width ranges are derivatives of the pour area).
Also it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio of between approximately 1.40 and 1.45, recognizing that an increase in score length is directly correlated to increasing ease of drinking and pouring (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”) in order to increase ease of drinking and pouring from different can rotation tilt angles, 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.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 23, Gogola further teaches the pour opening has an area that is approximately 95% of a pour opening of a standard 209 size can end (95% of 0.696 is 0.661 square inches which falls within the optimized ranges for the parent claim 1 pour area, therefore the claimed value is obvious for the same reasons in claim 1).
In addition and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Gogola as modified above does not expressly disclose the specific proportion of 95% area claimed, then 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 pour area of Gogola to be proportionally 95% of a 209 size can end pour area, 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 (i.e. tab opens pour panel area, contents flow from resulting pour opening area), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 24, Gogola further teaches the pour opening has a pour area (necessarily).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific pour opening area (i.e. which is also the pour panel area).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at
a pour area of between approximately 0.64 and 0.67 square inches (in2), recognizing that an increase in pour area is directly correlated to increasing ease of drinking and pouring (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”) in order to increase ease of drinking and pouring, 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 25, Gogola further teaches the score is a frangible score (the score is frangible), and wherein a frangible residual defined by a depth of the frangible score has a thickness of approximately between 0.003 inches and 0.0004 inches ([0037] “the score residual 130 of the illustrated example may be… 0.0032” inches depth).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 (11/17/2025).
US 20140190971 & WO 2014150834 – "Fig. 21, the aperture on the 206 lid may be 0.59 square inches and the aperture on the 202 lid may be 0.53 square inches, and the like. In some embodiments, the sizes may be reversed such that the 202 aperture is 0.59 square inches" ([0077], Fig 21)
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
