DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 18 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 15, and 19 – 24 remain pending in the application. Claims 25 and 26 are new claims commensurate in scope with claim 1 and therefore are under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 15, and 19 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik (US 2017/0176092 A1) in view of Soysal (WO 2008/077966 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Naik discloses a vacuum adiabatic body (“vacuum insulated refrigerator structure”, e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; ¶¶ [0002] – [0020]), comprising:
a first plate having an opening (a first one of “wrapper“ 32 or “liner” 34: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4; ¶¶ [0015], [0016], [0020]);
a second plate (the other of “wrapper” 32 and “liner” 34: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4; ¶¶ [0015], [0016], [0020]);
a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate (“interior space” 42: e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0015] – [0017], [0020]);
a pipe passing through the opening (one of various “lines” 14, 16 for utilities, e.g. power, water, refrigerant, and/or control: e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 7; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0014], [0016] – [0020]); and
at least one cap provided at the opening to shield the opening, wherein the at least one cap having an inner space to receive at least a portion of the pipe (“fitting” 52, 58 through which the “lines” 14, 16 are passed: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0016], [0020]), and wherein the pipe passes through the at least one cap (e.g. Fig. 3, 4).
Although Naik is not explicit as to the at least one cap including a first part having a first surface supported by the first plate and a second part connected to the first part and having a second surface to shield the opening, wherein the first part and the second part define an inner space to receive at least a portion of the pipe, these features would have been obvious in view of Soysal.
Soysal discloses an adiabatic body (“insulated unit”, e.g. “insulated unit” 1: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0006] – [0011], [0014] – [0021], [0023] – [0026]), comprising:
a first plate having an opening (a first one of “inner wall” 2 or “outer wall” 3 forming “openings” 5, 105: e.g. Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]);
a second plate (the other of the “inner wall” 2 and the “outer wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]);
an insulating space provided between the first plate and the second plate (“insulation volume” 4: e.g. Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0016] – [0018], [0021]); and
at least one cap provided at the opening to shield the opening, the at least one cap including a first part having a first surface supported by the first plate and a second part connected to the first part and having a second surface to shield the opening, wherein the first part and the second part define an inner space (“lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0023] – [0025]).
Soysal’s Fig. 4 is annotated below to show correspondence to the claimed parts as highlighted above:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Second part)][AltContent: textbox (First part)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Inner space)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Given Soysal relates to a “tube” 7, it is understood Soysal’s Fig. 4 depicts a cross-section lengthwise along a cylindrical structure. Accordingly, while only one correspondence to a first part and a second part are highlighted, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand Soysal’s Fig. 4 to provide additional correspondence at other points in Fig. 4 were structures are similarly positioned to those highlighted.
Soysal also discloses the adiabatic body includes a tube for passing cables and the like therethrough (“tube” 7: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016]). Soysal notes the protrusion is advantageous for improving the leakproof properties of the insulating space (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0026]). As such, enclosing the ends of the tube forming such “extensions” to not expose the tube outside of the cap would have been seen as beneficial to maintaining the leakproof properties.
Naik discloses a similar purpose for a tube (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]). Naik’s vacuum space also needs to be leakproof in order to preserve the vacuum (“airtight” seal: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0017], [0020]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Naik’s at least one cap to include a first part having a first surface supported by the first plate and a second part connected to the first part and having a second surface to shield the opening, wherein the first part and the second part define an inner space to receive at least a portion of the pipe as Soysal suggests, the motivation being to provide at least one cap which is capable of protecting a structure beneficial to preventing leaks.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the at least one cap is provided outside the first plate, or contacts the first plate (e.g. Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the first plate provides a wall of a low-temperature space or a first space, and the second plate provides a wall of a high-temperature space or a second space (“liner” 34 faces an “interior space” 22 whereas “wrapper” 32 faces away from the “interior space” 22: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0013] – [0015], [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the first plate Soysal discloses for modifying Naik includes a protrusion defining the opening, and wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the protrusion (“extensions” 6, 106 which are shielded by the “lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]). Soysal notes the protrusion is advantageous for improving the leakproof properties of the insulating space (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0026]), and therefore would have been obvious to modify Naik’s first plate to include a protrusion defining the opening, wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the protrusion for this reason.
While Soysal does not explicitly mention the inner space of their cap receiving at least a portion of a pipe, Naik’s noted equivalence of the utilities such as cables and water lines implies the modifications above should be made in mind of providing the cap to receive at least a portion of a pipe for a protrusion formed where a pipe is added.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a tube that receives at least a portion of the pipe in the opening, wherein the first plate includes at least a portion configured to couple to the tube (to connect to an “outer casing” 64 of an “umbilical” 46: e.g. ¶ [0020]), and wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the at least a portion of the first plate (in order to provide an “airtight seal”: e.g. Fig. 4; ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, Naik discloses the at least a portion of the first plate includes a pair of portions configured to couple to the tube, and wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the pair of portions of the first plate.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a tube that receives at least a portion of the pipe in the opening, wherein the first plate includes a portion configured to be welded to the tube (to weld to an “outer casing” 64 of an “umbilical” 46: e.g. ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the opening is a first opening, and the second plate has a second opening, and wherein the pipe passes through the first opening and the second opening (e.g. Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Naik discloses the at least one cap comprises a first cap provided at the first opening and a second cap provided at the second opening (“fitting” 52, 58: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Naik discloses the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a tube receiving at least a portion of the pipe in the opening (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]), wherein the vacuum space has a thickness in a first direction (e.g. Fig. 2 – 4), and wherein a length of the tube passing through the first and second openings in the first direction is greater than the thickness of the vacuum space (e.g. Fig. 3 – 4).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a tube receiving at least a portion of the pipe in the opening, wherein the tube comprises a first portion disposed inside the opening, a second portion disposed in the vacuum space and a third portion disposed outside the vacuum space, and wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the third portion of the tube (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a tube receiving at least a portion of the pipe in the opening (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Naik discloses a vacuum adiabatic body (“vacuum insulated refrigerator structure”, e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; ¶¶ [0002] – [0020]), comprising:
a first plate having an opening (a first one of “wrapper“ 32 or “liner” 34: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4; ¶¶ [0015], [0016], [0020]);
a second plate (the other of “wrapper” 32 and “liner” 34: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4; ¶¶ [0015], [0016], [0020]);
a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate (“interior space” 42: e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0015] – [0017], [0020]);
a pipe passing through the opening (one of various “lines” 14, 16 for utilities, e.g. power, water, refrigerant, and/or control: e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 7; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0014], [0016] – [0020]).
Although Naik is not explicit as to the vacuum adiabatic body comprising a cap provided outside the vacuum space and includes an enclosure having an inner space in which at least a portion of the pipe is located, wherein the first plate includes a first part that extends in a first direction and a second part that extends in a second direction which is different from the first direction, wherein in the opening is formed in the first part, and wherein the enclosure of the cap includes a surface supported by the first part and a portion to cover at least a portion of the first part and at least a portion of the second part, these features would have been obvious in view of Soysal.
Naik provides at least one cap provided at the opening to shield the opening, the at least one cap having an inner space (“lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0023] – [0025]).
Soysal discloses an adiabatic body (“insulated unit”, e.g. “insulated unit” 1: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0006] – [0011], [0014] – [0021], [0023] – [0026]), comprising:
a first plate having an opening (a first one of “inner wall” 2 or “outer wall” 3 forming “openings” 5, 105: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]);
a second plate (the other of the “inner wall” 2 and the “outer wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]);
an insulating space provided between the first plate and the second plate (“insulation volume” 4: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0016] – [0018], [0021]); and
a cap provided outside the vacuum space and supported by the first plate or the second plate, wherein the cap includes an enclosure having an inner space (“lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0023] – [0025]),
wherein the first plate includes a first part that extends in a first direction (“extensions” 6, 106: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]) and a second part that extends in a second direction that is different from the first direction (the remainder of the “inner wall” 2 or the “outer wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]),
wherein the opening is formed in the first part (at the ends of the “extensions” 6, 106: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]), and
wherein the enclosure of the cap includes a surface supported by the first part and a portion to cover at least a portion of the first part and at least a portion of the second part (e.g. Fig. 3; 4).
Soysal also discloses the adiabatic body includes a tube for passing cables and the like therethrough (“tube” 7: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016]). Soysal notes the cap is disposed to enclose an end of the tube, and thus cables and the like passing therethrough (“extensions” 6, 106 which are shielded by the “lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]). This construction is advantageous for improving the leakproof properties of the insulating space (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0026]). As such, enclosing the ends of the tube forming such “extensions” to not expose the tube outside of the cap would have been seen as beneficial to maintaining the leakproof properties.
Naik discloses a similar purpose for a tube (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]). Naik’s vacuum space also needs to be leakproof in order to preserve the vacuum (“airtight” seal: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0017], [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify vacuum adiabatic body comprising a cap provided outside the vacuum space and includes an enclosure having an inner space in which at least a portion of the pipe is located, wherein the first plate includes a first part that extends in a first direction and a second part that extends in a second direction which is different from the first direction, wherein in the opening is formed in the first part, and wherein the enclosure of the cap includes a surface supported by the first part and a portion to cover at least a portion of the first part and at least a portion of the second part, e.g. as Soysal discloses, the motivation being to improve the leakproof properties of the vacuum adiabatic body.
Naik’s noted equivalence of the utilities such as cables and water lines implies the modifications above should be made in mind of providing the cap to have an inner space in which at least a portion of a pipe is located.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 19, Soysal discloses the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a tube configured to surround a portion of the cable etc. the tube being located in the inner space off the enclosure (“tube” 7: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016]). For the modifications discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 19, it is understood such a tube would surround a portion of the pipe.
Regarding claim 21, Naik discloses a vacuum adiabatic body (“vacuum insulated refrigerator structure”, e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; ¶¶ [0002] – [0020]), comprising:
a first plate having an opening (a first one of “wrapper“ 32 or “liner” 34: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4; ¶¶ [0015], [0016], [0020]);
a second plate (the other of “wrapper” 32 and “liner” 34: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4; ¶¶ [0015], [0016], [0020]);
a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate (“interior space” 42: e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0015] – [0017], [0020]);
a pipe passing through the opening (one of various “lines” 14, 16 for utilities, e.g. power, water, refrigerant, and/or control: e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 7; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0014], [0016] – [0020]);
a tube receiving at least a portion of the pipe in the opening (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]); and
at least one cap provided at the opening to shield the tube (“fitting” 52, 58: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0016], [0020]), wherein the pipe passes through the at least one cap (e.g. Fig. 1, 3 – 7; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0014], [0016] – [0020]), and wherein the at least one cap includes a portion to contact the pipe (e.g. Fig. 3, 4).
Although Naik is not explicit as to the first plate including a protrusion defining the opening, and wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the protrusion, this feature would have been obvious in view of Soysal.
Soysal discloses an adiabatic body (“insulated unit”, e.g. “insulated unit” 1: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0006] – [0011], [0014] – [0021], [0023] – [0026]), comprising:
a first plate having an opening (a first one of “inner wall” 2 or “outer wall” 3 forming “openings” 5, 105: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]);
a second plate (the other of the “inner wall” 2 and the “outer wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]);
an insulating space provided between the first plate and the second plate (“insulation volume” 4: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0016] – [0018], [0021]); and
at least one cap provided at the opening to shield the tube (“lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0023] – [0025]); and
the first plate including a protrusion defining the opening, wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the protrusion (“extensions” 6, 106 which are shielded by the “lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]).
Soysal also discloses the adiabatic body includes a tube for passing cables and the like therethrough (“tube” 7: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016]). Soysal notes the “extensions” are advantageous for improving the leakproof properties of the insulating space (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0026]). As such, enclosing the ends of the tube forming such “extensions” to not expose the tube outside of the cap would have been seen as beneficial to maintaining the leakproof properties.
Naik discloses a similar purpose for a tube (“umbilical”, e.g. “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig. 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]). Naik’s vacuum space also needs to be leakproof in order to preserve the vacuum (“airtight” seal: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0017], [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Naik’s first plate such that the first plate includes a protrusion defining the opening, and wherein the at least one cap is provided to shield the protrusion as Soysal discloses, the motivation being to improve the leakproof properties of the vacuum adiabatic body.
Regarding claim 22, Naik discloses, e.g., a refrigerator comprising the vacuum adiabatic body as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 (“refrigerator”, e.g. “refrigerator” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; ¶¶ [0002] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the first plate and the second plate is sealed so as to vacuumize an interior of the vacuum adiabatic body (e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0015], [0020]).
Regarding claim 24, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Naik discloses the at least one cap is disposed to close the opening (“fitting” 52, 58 seal an “umbilical” 46: e.g. Fig.1, 3 – 6; ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016] – [0019]).
Regarding claim 25, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Soysal discloses the first surface of the at least one cap includes a flat surface, and wherein the second surface of the at least one cap includes a round surface (as formed from the contact against the “walls” 2, 3 for a circular “lid” 9: e.g. Fig. 4; ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 26, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Soysal discloses the first plate includes a first portion that extends in a first direction (“extensions” 6, 106: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]) and a second portion that extends in a second direction which is different from the first direction (the remainder of the “inner wall” 2 or the “outer wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007], [0016] – [0018]), wherein the opening is formed in the first portion (at the ends of the “extensions” 6, 106: e.g. Fig. 3, 4; ¶¶ [0007] – [0010], [0016], [0018] – [0021], [0023] – [0025]), wherein the first surface is supported by the first portion of the first plate, and wherein the first part and the second part of the at least one cap are disposed to cover at least a portion of the first part and at least a portion of the second part (e.g. Fig. 3; 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the objection to claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 7 – 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9 – 12, filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7 – 14, and 22 – 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Naik have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a combination of Naik and Soysal.
Applicant asserts patentability of claim 1 on the basis Naik does not disclose at least one cap provided at the opening to shield the opening, wherein the at least one cap includes a first part having a first surface supported by the first plate and a second part connected to the first part and having a second surface to shield the opening, wherein the first part and the second part define an inner space to receive at least a portion of the pipe, and wherein the pipe passes through the second surface of the second part.
The examiner observes Soysal addresses these deficiencies. The annotations shown in the rejection of claim 1 demonstrate a correspondence to the claimed features.
The above reasoning similarly applies to the dependent claims of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 19 – 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Naik and Soysal rely on similar reasoning to that of claim 1. Accordingly, the discussion above with respect to claim 1 similarly applies.
With additional respect to claim 21, the examiner considers the recitation of a cap to include a portion “to contact the pipe” to be broader than requiring contact, or direct contact, of the pipe with the cap. Moreover, a modification to have a structure like Soysal’s Fig. 4 would provide a cap with a structure which can contact a pipe, noting the inward turn the cap makes into a tube.
With respect to all of the claims, the examiner observes Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on a narrower interpretation than the claims permit. Notably, it appears to the examiner that Applicant relies on structures exemplified by, for instance, Fig. 20 – 24 of the instant application.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.01, II.
Accordingly, it would be improper to limit the claims to the arrangements shown in the instant specification, particularly as the claims and the instant specification appear to use different terms to refer to the same features.
Therefore, the examiner considers Naik and Soysal to reasonably read upon the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang (US 2017/0292746 A1) teaches a “pipe case” 140 for covering openings in adiabatic bodies for refrigerators (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0053]).
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783