DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on March 16th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 17th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and Claims 21-40 have been newly-added. Consequently, Claims 21-40 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mount” (of Claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). in this case, Applicant’s specification merely depicts “surface 54”; it does not label or denote any separate and distinct “mount” as recited in Claim 21. Given that the “mount” is a critical defining element of Applicant’s recited invention, it is critical that the “mount” be clearly shown in the drawings (as noted above) for a proper understanding of the structure of the invention. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21, lines 5-6 recite “the housing including a mount and a surface”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the particular structural arrangement of the housing cannot be determined. Initially, as noted in the Drawing Objection above, Applicant’s specification merely depicts “surface 54”; it does not label or denote any separate and distinct “mount” as recited in Claim 21. Given that the “mount” is a critical defining element of Applicant’s recited invention, it is critical that the “mount” be clearly shown in the drawings (as noted above) for a proper understanding of the structure of the invention. Without a depiction of the “mount”, it becomes wholly unclear where or how the “mount” is arranged relative to the “drive assembly” and relative to the separately recited “surface”. Furthermore, while Claim 21 recites both 1) a mount and 2) a surface, Claim 34 (which depends from Claim 21) recites that “the surface of the housing serves as the mount”. In other words, while Claim 21 requires separate and distinct elements (i.e. the mount and the surface), Claim 34 instead requires these to be formed as a singular element. It is not understood how the scope(s) of Claims 21 and 34 can coexist, as currently recited. In other words, it does not appear to be physically possible to simultaneously have both 1) distinct mount and surface elements and 2) the mount and surface being one and the same. In other words, it is not clear where the “mount” ends and the “surface” begins. This conflict in claim scope renders it impossible to know where (or how) the mount is to be structured on the drive assembly. Thus, whether the “mount” is separate and distinct from the “surface” (or not) is not made clear by the claims. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, and therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted Claim 21 in the manner that best agrees with dependent Claims 34-36; that is, the “mount” and the “surface” are one and the same element (i.e. a singular surface forms both).
Claim 36, line 1 recites “an exterior surface of the housing”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) referring back to the “surface” of Claim 21 or 2) introducing another surface altogether.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 21-31, 33-38, & 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States PG-Pub. No. 2007/0154319 to Stiles, Jr. et al. in view of US 7,618,065 to Yau.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
848
1138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to Independent Claim 21, and with particular reference to Figures 1, 6, and 8 immediately above, Stiles, Jr. et al. (Stiles) discloses:
21. A variable speed pumping system (Fig. 1), comprising: a motor (24; para. 30) securable with a pump (16; para. 29); a drive assembly (30-32; para. 31), the drive assembly including: an enclosure (the bottom half (i.e. enclosure) of the drive assembly, labeled in Fig. 8 by the Examiner for clarity) containing first electrical components (32) for driving the motor, and a housing (the upper half (i.e. housing) of the drive assembly labeled in Fig. 8 by the Examiner, for clarity) positioned over the enclosure (via the four corner fasteners, as labeled by the examiner above), the housing including a mount and a surface (i.e. the top surface/recess of the housing) (see also the 112b rejection above); an interface module (31, 40, 42, 44; Figs. 6 & 8; para. 33) containing second electrical components (the interface module 31 implicitly includes internal electronic circuitry for the keypad 40 and display 42) and having a display (42) with user input means (40) for selecting an operating parameter of the motor (para. 33)
Although Stiles discloses the majority of Applicant's recited invention, he does not disclose:
1) the interface module, including the second electrical components and the display with user input means for selecting an operating parameter of the motor, being (i) selectively positionable among a plurality of positions with respect to the enclosure of the drive assembly including the first electrical components for driving the motor, and (ii) removably installable on the mount, and
2) a locking system configured to removably secure the interface module with respect to the mount, wherein the first electrical components for driving the motor are connectable with the second electrical components through the surface of the housing when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions, as claimed.
However, such features are known in the art of electronic user interfaces, as shown by Yau (Fig. 1). In particular, Yau discloses a housing (10) having a mount/surface/recess (11, 12) upon which an electronic interface module 40 (i.e. display and user input means) is removably mounted, wherein the interface module 40 (including the display and user input means) is selectively positionable among a plurality of positions so as to allow the interface module to be removably installed with respect to said mount (col. 4, line 22 - col. 5, line 2). In these disclosures, Yau specifically discloses detachably mounting the user interface 40 to the surface/mount via spring-biased connectors 20 (i.e. a locking system) that allows the user interface 40 to be removably secured to the mount in two different positions ("can also be reversed (e.g. a 180 degrees reverse) for performing other functions"; col. 5, lines 1-2). Yau further discloses an electrical connection from a controller ("laptop or desktop computer"; col. 4, lines 37-40) to the interface module 40 through the mount surface (12) (i.e. via the spring-loaded pins 20) and associated wiring (seen best in Fig. 2B). As such, Yau clearly discloses a detachable user interface designed to be mounted in a plurality of different positions (while providing an electrical connection through a surface of the mount in both positions) in order to allow optimal use of the user interface module depending on the functions needed. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a more versatile user interface module, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yau in combination with those seen in Stiles in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stile's user interface 31 and the corresponding housing mount/surface/recess with the arrangement taught in Yau (i.e. interface module slots (41) and locking arrangement (20) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a detachable and reversible mounting arrangement for Stiles' user interface 31 that greatly improves system versatility and functionality for the user (i.e. providing a user interface that can be oriented/locked into multiple positions, as desired by the user). With such a combination, Stiles' user interface 31 would become removable and repositionable among a plurality of positions (i.e. two positions, 180 degrees apart, as taught in Yau) with respect to the drive assembly, as noted above.
In regards to Claim 22, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the interface module includes a first portion of the locking system (i.e. slots 41, from Yau) and the mount includes a second portion of the locking system (i.e. slots 121, as taught in Yau; Figs. 5A-5B).
In regards to Claim 23, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the locking system includes a fastener (i.e. spring-loaded pins 20, as taught in Yau).
In regards to Claim 24, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the fastener is removable (i.e. removable from the interface module, as clearly taught in Yau; see also removability in Fig. 5A).
In regards to Claim 25, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the first portion of the locking system and the second portion of the locking system are aligned when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (apparent in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 26, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the first portion of the locking system includes a plurality of interface apertures (41) and the second portion of the locking system includes a plurality of mount apertures (121), wherein at least one of the plurality of interface apertures is aligned with one of the plurality of mount apertures when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (clearly shown in Fig. 1), and wherein a fastener (i.e. a spring-loaded pin 20) is configured to extend through the at least one interface aperture and the mount aperture that are aligned when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (apparent in Figs. 1 & 5A-5B).
In regards to Claim 27, Stiles discloses that the first electrical components (32) for driving the motor include a controller (i.e. a speed controller; “variable speed drive that provides for the infinitely variable control of the pump motor 24 (i.e., varies the speed of the pump motor”; para. 31).
In regards to Claim 28, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the interface module is rotatable between the plurality of positions (i.e. rotated 180 degrees, as taught in Yau at col. 5, lines 1-2).
In regards to Claim 29, Stiles discloses that the interface module is rotatable on the mount (in this case, Stiles’ interface module 31, 40, 42, 44 is rotatable (i.e. capable of being rotated) while mounted on the housing to change an orientation of said interface module (such functionality is implicit in Stiles; in this case, the orientation of the interface module depends, at a minimum, on the orientation of the pump assembly; thus, when/if the orientation of the pump assembly is changed, so does the orientation of the interface module, and as such, the interface module is rotatable while on the mount, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 30, Stiles discloses that the drive assembly includes an opening (92) allowing access to at least one of the first electrical components contained by the enclosure (Fig. 8) and a cover (94) configured to removably cover the opening (“when the data cable 90 is disconnected”; para. 65).
In regards to Claim 31, Stiles discloses that the cover is removable from the housing (“when the data cable 90 is disconnected”; para. 65).
In regards to Claim 33, Stiles as modified by Yau discloses that the surface of the housing (of Stiles) includes an opening (i.e. the openings 121 for pins 20; see Figs. 5A-5B of Yau), and the first electrical components for driving the motor are connectable with the second electrical components through the opening (via the teachings of Yau, as discussed above; the same would remain in the combination with Stiles).
In regards to Claims 34-36, Stiles discloses that the top, exterior surface of the housing serves as the mount (see Claims 21 above, as well as the 112b rejection above).
In regards to Claim 37, Stiles discloses that the drive assembly includes a heat sink (labeled by the examiner in Fig. 8 above, for clarity).
In regards to Claim 38, Stiles discloses that the interface module includes a cover (44) (Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 40, Stiles discloses that the pumping system (12) includes the pump (apparent in Fig. 7).
Claim 21-32, 34, 36-37, & 39-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States PG-Pub. No. 6,027,938 to Dister in view of MasterTemp Installation and User’s Guide (attached herein; “MasterTemp” hereinafter).
PNG
media_image4.png
614
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to Independent Claim 21, and with particular reference to Figure 1 shown immediately above, Dister discloses:
21. A variable speed pumping system (Fig. 1), comprising: a motor (49) securable with a pump (33); a drive assembly (11-16), the drive assembly including: an enclosure (12; Fig. 6) containing first electrical components (60-62) for driving the motor (col. 6, lines 6-10), and a housing (15; Figs. 1 & 7) positioned over the enclosure (Fig. 1), the housing including a mount and a surface (i.e. the external surface thereof, as seen in Figs. 1 & 7) (see also the 112b rejection above); an interface module (22) containing second electrical components (the interface module 22 implicitly includes internal electronic circuitry powering the screen and keyboard; see also the electrical wire extending to the housing 15 in Fig. 1) and having a display with user input means for selecting an operating parameter of the motor (as seen in Fig. 1; see also col. 5, lines 1-6); the interface module, including the second electrical components and the display with user input means for selecting an operating parameter of the motor, being (i) selectively positionable among a plurality of positions with respect to the enclosure of the drive assembly including the first electrical components for driving the motor, and (ii) installable on the mount (col, 5, lines 3-6 disclose both 1) a machine-mounted position where the electrical cable of the interface module 22 is directly mounted to the housing 15, and 2) a remote mounted position); wherein the first electrical components for driving the motor are connectable with the second electrical components through the surface of the housing when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (as seen in Fig. 1, the electrical cable of the interface module 22 electrically connects the interface module 22 and the first electrical components 12 through the surface of the housing when the interface module 22 is mounted to the machine 11 (as shown in Fig. 1); additionally, Dister makes clear (at col. 5, lines 1-6) that the electrical cable connection is maintained when the interface module is mounted remote from the drive assembly)
Although Dister clearly discloses the majority of Applicant's recited invention, he does not further disclose: the interface module being removably installable on the mount, a locking system configured to removably secure the interface module with respect to the mount, as claimed.
However, MasterTemp (attached herein) discloses a pool pump assembly having an interface module ("control panel" and associated "top panel" of Fig. 9) and associated mount (i.e. the top surface formed by the four door access panels; Fig. 9), wherein the interface module is removably mounted (via "four corner screws"; page 10), so as to be selectively positionable among a plurality of positions so as to allow the interface module to be removably installed on said mount ("Control Panel Indexing" on page 10 discloses three different mounting positions). MasterTech specifically discloses detachably mounting the interface module to the top mounting surface via four corner screws (i.e. a locking system configured to removably secure said at least said interface module with respect to said mount) so as to allow the interface module to be removably mounted in three different positions to allow for convenient access to the control panel. As such, MasterTech clearly discloses the known desire to allow a user interface module to be detachably mounted in a plurality of positions relative to a mount in order to allow for optimal user convenience. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a more versatile user interface module, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in MasterTech in combination with those seen in Dister in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Dister's user interface and corresponding drive assembly to utilize the mounting assembly from MasterTech (i.e. Dister's interface module 22 being disposed on a panel that is removably fastened to the mount surface 14 of the drive assembly via screws) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a detachable mounting arrangement for Dister's user interface 22 that greatly improves mounting versatility, and thus, user friendliness.
In regards to Claim 22, Dister as modified by MasterTech discloses that the interface module includes a first portion of the locking system (i.e. interface panel holes that receive “four corner screws”, from MasterTech) and the mount includes a second portion of the locking system (i.e. mounting holes, that receive “four corner screws”, from MasterTech) (refer also to “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10 of MasterTech).
In regards to Claim 23, Dister as modified by MasterTech discloses that the locking system includes a fastener (i.e. “four corner screws”, from MasterTech; “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10).
In regards to Claim 24, Dister as modified by MasterTech discloses that the fastener is removable (clearly disclosed at page 10 of MasterTech; see steps 2 and 6 of “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10).
In regards to Claim 25, Dister as modified by MasterTech discloses that the first portion of the locking system and the second portion of the locking system are aligned when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (apparent from “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10 of MasterTech).
In regards to Claim 26, Dister as modified by MasterTech discloses that the first portion of the locking system includes a plurality of interface apertures and the second portion of the locking system includes a plurality of mount apertures (see Claim 22 above; see also “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10 of MasterTech), wherein at least one of the plurality of interface apertures is aligned with one of the plurality of mount apertures when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (apparent from “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10 of MasterTech), and wherein a fastener (“four corner screws”; “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10 of MasterTech) is configured to extend through the at least one interface aperture and the mount aperture that are aligned when the interface module is in each of the plurality of positions (“Control Panel Indexing” on page 10 of MasterTech).
In regards to Claim 27, Dister discloses that the first electrical components for driving the motor include a controller (processor board 62; Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 28, Dister as modified by MasterTech discloses that the interface module is rotatable between the plurality of positions (i.e. rotated into three different mounting positions, as taught in MasterTemp at “Control Panel Indexing” on page 10).
In regards to Claim 29, Dister discloses that the interface module is rotatable on the mount (in this case, Dister's interface module 22 is rotatable (i.e. capable of being rotated) while mounted on the housing 15 to change an orientation of said interface module (such functionality is implicit in Dister; in this case, the orientation of the interface module 22 depends, at a minimum, on the orientation of the pump assembly 10; thus, when/if the orientation of the pump assembly 10 is changed, so does the orientation of the interface module 22, and as such, the interface module is rotatable while on the mount, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 30, Dister discloses that the drive assembly includes an opening (not shown) allowing access to at least one of the first electrical components contained by the enclosure and a cover ("cover wall"; "plate-like member cover") configured to removably cover the opening (col. 6, line 60 - col. 7, line 2 and Figure 1 make clear that a cover ("cover wall") is removably mounted over an opening in the top wall of the enclosure)
In regards to Claim 31, Dister discloses that the cover is removable from the housing (col. 6, line 60 - col. 7, line 2).
In regards to Claim 32, Dister discloses an electrical cable (the cable seen in Fig. 1 interconnecting the user interface 22 with the enclosure 12) configured to connect the first electrical components for driving the motor with the second electrical components (apparent in Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 1-3).
In regards to Claims 34 & 36, Dister discloses that the exterior, side surface of the housing serves as the mount (apparent in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 37, Dister discloses that the drive assembly includes a heat sink (16; Figs. 2A-2B).
In regards to Claim 39, Dister discloses that the interface module is configured to be removed from the drive assembly and mounted remotely from the drive assembly (col. 5, lines 1-6; see also Claim 21 above).
In regards to Claim 40, Dister discloses that the pumping assembly includes the pump (33).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-51 of U.S. Patent No. 12,018,677 to Ortiz et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. In other words, the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the issued patent. Specifically, the patent and the instant application claim common subject matter as follows: a variable speed pumping system having a pump, a motor, a drive assembly, a mount, a surface, a user interface selectively positionable among a plurality of positions with respect to said mount, a locking system for the interface module, and all functional limitations associated with these common elements. Finally, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the previous application which matured into a patent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed March 16th, 2026 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights