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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler (US3516423) in view of Kim (KR20180065869A).
Regarding claim 1, Seidler discloses an applicator (11, 21; Figures 1-10) for attaching a patch to a user’s skin (the limitation “for attaching a patch to the skin” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler discloses a “cosmetic article applicator”, refer to Column 1, lines 27-28, comprising an adhesive 18, 32, for which to attach a cosmetic article to a user’s body, where adhesive 18, 32 is fully capable of, without modification, adhering to a patch for subsequent attachment to a user’s skin), the applicator comprising:
a supporting unit (13 OR 22 OR 37); and
a patch-attaching unit (16, best shown in Figures 1-3; 31 OR 28, best shown in Figure 4; 39, best shown in Figure 5), supported by the supporting unit (refer to Figures 1-8), and having a first adhesive surface (exterior surface comprising adhesive, 18; best shown in Figures 1-3; OR exterior surface of 31 to which adhesive 32 is affixed, refer to Figure 4; OR front/exterior surface of 39, as best shown in Figure 5) formed on one side (front/exterior side with respect to the orientation of Figures 1-4, and 5) for temporarily adhering a patch (the limitation “for temporarily adhering a patch” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler discloses a strip of material comprising an adhesive surface that is fully capable of, without modification, temporarily adhering a patch, if such a patch was provided; additionally, Seidler discloses that the applicator is “most especially useful in the application of…small articles”, refer to Column 1, lines 28-29 to a user’s face/skin, refer to Column 1, line 36); and
a handle (14, 23) provided for gripping by a user;
wherein the supporting unit extends from the handle on both sides (best shown in Figures 1, 4-5, and 7, wherein the supporting unit extends from the handle on both a left and a right side),
wherein the supporting unit is concavely formed toward the patch-attaching unit (referring to Figures 1, 4, and 5, the supporting unit is substantially U-shaped, with the patch-attaching unit being disposed at an end of the U-shape, thereby providing the supporting unit to be concavely formed toward the patch-attaching unit), and
wherein the supporting unit supports the patch-attaching unit at both ends thereof (best shown in Figures 1-6, wherein the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being an elongated material, having a first and second end; each of the first and second ends are supported by the supporting unit).
Seidler does not explicitly disclose that the supporting unit elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction; however, Seidler does disclose that the supporting unit is “capable of being flexed”, (refer to claim 9) and that the supporting unit “is preferably molded of plastic material” (refer to Column 2, lines 49-50).
Kim discloses a similar applicator (130, Figures 1-7) comprising a supporting unit (referring to Figure 1, the supporting unit is the bottom half of 131), a patch-attaching unit (135) supported by the supporting unit (refer to Figure 1), having a first adhesive surface (135), and wherein the supporting unit is formed of an elastic material such that the supporting unit elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction (“the main body 131 should be elastically restored after being pressed…the main body 131 is made of a material that can be elastically restored”, refer to Page 5, third paragraph from the bottom of the page), thereby enabling a user to exert force on the applicator with minimal risk of snapping/breaking the tool during use. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seidler’s applicator to be formed of an elastic material such that the supporting unit elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction, as taught by Kim, since such a modification provides the advantage of reducing the likelihood of the applicator breaking during use.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit is connected to the handle (refer to Seidler Figures 1, 4-5, and 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit is formed as a curve shape with a preset curvature, and the curved shape is transformed into an open shape and then restored to the preset curvature (refer to Figures 5-6; alternatively, the limitation “the curved shape is transformed into an open shape and then restored to the preset curvature “, is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler’s embodiment of Figures 1-4 depict a curved shape and per the modification addressed in claim 1, the applicator was modified to be formed of an elastic material, wherein when a force is applied to the curved shape of an elastic material, the curved shape will be pressed open and then when the force is removed, the curved shaped will be restored to its original shape).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformable, the patch-attaching unit is stretched when the supporting unit is elastically deformed and stretched, and the patch-attaching unit is restored to an original state when the supporting unit is restored to the original state (refer to Seidler Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit has a coupling unit (the limitation “coupling unit” is interpreted in light of Applicant’s disclosure, as being the distal ends of the supporting unit; referring to Seidler Figures 1-4, the distal/top portion of 15, 25, define the coupling unit; OR, referring to Figure 4, the coupling unit is 26 + the distal ends of 25; referring to Seidler Figure 5, the coupling unit is 38) to which the patch-attaching unit is optionally coupled and fixed (referring to Figures 1-4, the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being coupled and fixed to the coupling unit via grooves 17, and 24; referring to Figures 5-6, the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being disposed within a groove which is not labeled but is depicted by the hidden lines in Seidler Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 9, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the coupling unit has a fitting groove (17, Figures 1-3; 24, Figure 4; OR in Figure 4, 29 defines a dovetail joint, wherein the female portion of said joint that is disposed in 29 defines a fitting groove; in Figures 5-6, the fitting groove is not labeled but is the recess occupied by opposing end portions of patch-attaching unit 39 depicted by the hidden lines in Figure 6) into which the patch-attaching unit is coupled by fitting (refer to Figures 1-4, wherein the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being fit/sized to mate with the grooves; referring to Figure 6, the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being fit within a groove/opening).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 10, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein at least a portion of the fitting groove can be opened to the outside (referring to Figure 4, fitting groove 24 is shown to be open to the outside; referring to Figures 1-3, the fitting groove is shown to extend toward an outside such that the patch-attaching unit is affixed therein), and an end of the patch-attaching unit is coupled by sliding with the fitting groove. The claimed phrase “and an end of the patch-attaching unit is coupled by sliding with the fitting groove” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the applicator is assembled by a process involving sliding an end of the patch-attaching unit into the fitting groove in order to couple the end to the groove. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, in this case, the implied structure is an end of the patch-attaching unit being disposed within the groove, which Seidler clearly teaches, as depicted in at least Figures 1-4. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 10, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein an end (back end with respect to Figure 4) of the patch-attaching unit (28, Figure 4) includes a portion more convexly formed (referring to Figure 4, a back end of 28 comprises a male portion of a dovetail joint, this male portion being substantially circular/convex) in a preset direction (rearward direction) than another portion (the top portion which is depicted as a flat surface), and the fitting groove has a shape that allows the convex shape of the end to be caught (refer to Figure 4, wherein the fitting groove is a concave groove that accepts the convex shape of the end of the patch-attaching unit to form a complete dovetail coupling, 29) in the direction in which an elastic restoring force is exerted when the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformed (the limitation “in the direction in which an elastic restoring force is exerted when the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformed” is interpreted as an intended use limitation. In the embodiment depicted in Seidler Figure 4, 28 is described as being formed of rubber (refer to Column 3, lines 43), where rubber is an elastic material, such that a force applied perpendicular to surface 31, will be restored in an opposing direction; Seidler’s convex shape is configured similar to the device depicted in applicant’s Figure 3, wherein the convex shape is disposed on a side of the patch-attaching unit, opposite the adhesive, and would therefore perform similar to that of applicant’s invention such that “the fitting groove has a shape that allows the convex shape of the end to be caught in the direction in which an elastic restoring force is exerted when the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformed”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Seidler and Kim disclose the applicator of claim 12, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein a cross-section of the end is formed extruding (extruded is interpreted as extending) in a first shape (male, circular shape, refer to Seidler Figure 4), and wherein a cross-section of the fitting groove is formed in a second shape (female, circular shape, refer to Seidler Figure 4) corresponding to the first shape of the end (refer to Seidler Figure 4 wherein the two shapes correspond to one another in that they are both circular, one being male, one being female).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein the supporting unit has a first elastic modulus (every material has an elastic modulus, thus, Seidler’s supporting unit has a first elastic modulus), the patch-attaching unit has a second elastic modulus (every material has an elastic modulus, thus, Seidler’s patch-attaching unit has a second elastic modulus), the supporting unit (per the modification addressed in claim 1, the supporting unit of Seidler was modified to be elastically deformable) and the patch-attaching unit are provided to be elastically deformable (refer to Seidler Figure 6; additionally refer to Seidler Column 3, lines 60-63, which states that the band may be deflected upon actuation of the handles), respectively, and wherein the first elastic modulus is greater than the second elastic modulus (a greater elastic modulus equates to a more stiff material; the first elastic modulus of the supporting unit is depicted as being greater than/more stiff than that of the patch-attaching unit, since Seidler Figure 6 shows the supporting unit to remain rigid/stiff while the patch-attaching unit is relaxed).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein an adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is less than an adhesive force exerted by the patch on the skin of the user (it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite a patch but rather recites that the applicator is “for attaching a patch”; therefore any limitations drawn toward adhesiveness between the patch and the applicator are interpreted as intended use and the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim is fully capable of being used in such a way that an adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is less than an adhesive force exerted by the patch on the skin of the user, if one such patch was provided since the purpose of the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim is to only temporarily adhesively retain an article for subsequent application to a user’s body, in which case the adhesive force between the article and a user’s skin would need to be higher than that of the adhesive force between the first adhesive surface and the article).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 19, wherein the adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is greater than an adhesive force between the patch and a release sheet in a state when the patch is adhered to the release sheet (it is noted that claims 1 and 19 do not positively recite a patch but rather recite that the applicator is “for attaching a patch”, therefore limitations drawn toward adhesiveness between the patch and a release sheet to which the patch is attached, are interpreted as intended use; the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim is fully capable of being used in such a way that the adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is greater than an adhesive force between the patch and a release sheet in a state when the patch is adhered to the release sheet, if one such patch was provided on said release sheet).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seidler and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Philip (GB2554659A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit has a coupling unit (the limitation “coupling unit” is interpreted in light of applicant’s specification as the free ends of the supporting unit; Seidler discloses a coupling unit as the top half of legs, 15, with respect to Seidler Figure 1) to which the patch-attaching unit is optionally coupled.
The combination does not disclose wherein a thickness of the coupling unit is thicker than a thickness of a remaining portion of the supporting unit. Rather, the thickness appears to be substantially constant (refer to Seidler Figure 1).
Philip is concerned with solving the same problem as that of the combination of Seidler and Kim, that is, retaining a charge of elongated material between two posts of an applicator, and is therefore analogous art to that of the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim. Philip discloses a similar device (10, Figures 1-7), having a supporting unit (120, 220) with a coupling unit (600, 700) at free ends thereof (refer to Figures 1-7), wherein a thickness of the coupling unit is thicker than a remaining portion of the supporting unit (refer at least to the cropped and annotated Philip Figure 4, below wherein a thickness at area A is depicted as being thicker/wider than a remaining portion of the supporting unit; additionally refer to Figure 2), as an obvious matter of design choice in order to provide an area for retaining a length of material between a support. Although the drawings may not be to scale, they can still be relied upon for teaching the general conditions of the claim because the overall relationship is depicted. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim such that a thickness of the coupling unit is thicker than a thickness of a remaining portion of the supporting unit, as taught by Philip, as an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of retaining a length of material within a support.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seidler, Kim, and Philip disclose the applicator of claim 7, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the patch-attaching unit has a bent part (refer to cropped and annotated Seidler Figure 1, below, wherein the patch-attaching unit is formed into a U-shape, thereby providing two bent parts) formed proximate a terminal end thereof (refer to Seidler Figure 1), the bent part being connected to the coupling unit (refer to Seidler Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seidler and Kim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Berglund (US6234182).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 10, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein one or more pressing blocks are placed on the fitting groove, and the pressing block is inserted into the fitting groove and presses an end of the patch-attaching unit. Rather, the combination discloses the patch-attaching unit to simply be retained in the fitting groove, between two posts of the applicator (refer to Seidler Figures 1-3, and 5-6) without any additional, external fixing means. The combination does however disclose different embodiments comprising different means for coupling the patch-attaching unit to the applicator, including the use of pins 27 and bores 24 (see Seidler Figure 4), or via engagement of protrusions 59 with depression 53 (see Seidler Figure 8), thereby demonstrating that modifying the means by which the patch-attaching unit is coupled to the groove is within the scope of the invention.
Berglund is concerned with solving the same problem as that of the combination of Seidler and Kim, that is, retaining a charge of elongated material between two posts of an applicator, and is therefore analogous art to that of the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim. Berglund discloses an applicator (10, Figures 1-6) comprising first and second posts (12, 13, best shown in Figure 6) each comprising a fitting groove (15) that is configured to accept a charge of elongated material (11), this elongated material being analogous to the patch-attaching unit of the combination of Seidler and Kim, wherein the elongated material is retained in the fitting groove via one or more pressing blocks (17, best shown in Figures 1 and 3) placed on the fitting groove (best shown in Figures 1-2), and the one or more pressing blocks are inserted into the fitting groove (best shown in Figure 3) and presses an end of the elongated material disposed within the fitting groove (“said fixation…has been illustrated as obtained by means of…plug 17, inserted into and secured in a bottom hole 16”, refer to Column 3, lines 6-9) in order to securely retain the elongated material therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim, such that one or more pressing blocks are placed on the fitting groove, and the one or more pressing blocks are inserted into the fitting groove and presses an end of the elongated material disposed therein, as taught by Berglund, since such a modification would have involved simple substitution of one known coupling means (a pressing block that retains the elongated material in the groove, as taught by Berglund) for another known coupling means (insertion of the elongated material into the fitting groove with no additional external fittings, as taught by the combination of Seidler and Kim) to yield the predictable result of retaining a strip of elongated material securely between two posts for hands free use thereof. Modifying the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim such that the fitting groove comprises at least one pressing block, as taught by Berglund, provides a configuration wherein the at least one pressing block presses an end of the patch-attaching unit.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Seidler, Kim, and Berglund discloses the applicator of claim 14, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 14, the at least one pressing block of Berglund was incorporated into the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim, wherein a sum of a thickness of the end and a thickness of the at least one pressing block is greater than an inner width of the fitting groove (refer to Berglund Figure 2, wherein the diameter/thickness of the pressing block is depicted as being greater than the inner width of the fitting groove and therefore the sum of the thickness of the end and the thickness of the pressing block is also greater than an inner width of the fitting groove), and the end is pressed and fixed when the end and the pressing block are fitted into the fitting groove (“said fixation…has been illustrated as obtained by means of…plug 17, inserted into and secured in a bottom hole 16”, refer to Column 3, lines 6-9). Thus, the combination teaches all the limitations of claim 15.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seidler and Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker et al. (US2021/0076805).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein the first adhesive surface has one or more adsorption grooves formed by one or more depressions. Rather, the combination a silicone based adhesive (refer at least to Seidler Column 2, lines 61-62) as a means for temporarily adhering two cosmetic bodies, namely an applicator and a decorative object to be attached to a user’s fingernail.
Parker discloses a means for releasably adhering two cosmetic bodies, thereby solving the same problem, as that of the device of the combination of Seidler and Kim, and is therefore analogous art. Parker discloses a first body (10) in the form of a cosmetic pallet, and a second body (22) in the form of a godet, the first and second bodies being releasably adhered to one another via a strip of micro-suction tape (32), where micro-suction tape is formed of “millions of microscopic suction cups” (refer to Paragraph [0048]), wherein suction cups, by definition, comprise grooves formed by depressions therein. Parker’s micro-suction tape serves to “removably secure” (refer to Paragraph [0048]) the two bodies. Refer additionally to Parker Figures 1-14B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim such that the first adhesive surface is a micro-suction tape, as taught by Parker, where micro-suction tape comprises one or more grooves formed by one or more depressions, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of releasably adhering two bodies.
The limitation “adsorption” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; the combination of Kim and Parker disclose an adhesive strip comprising a plurality of grooves formed therein, these grooves being fully capable of interacting with some material placed on its surface via adsorption; additionally, applicant’s specification discloses that the depressions exert negative pressure on the patch (refer to Paragraph [0073] of applicant’s disclosure), where negative pressure describes a vacuum which is the mechanism by which suction cups, also known as vacuum cups, operate; thus, it appears that applicant’s adsorption grooves are describing a vacuum/suction cup, thereby further demonstrating that negative pressure/vacuum adhesive bodies are capable of adsorption.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Seidler, Kim and Parker discloses the applicator of claim 16, wherein the size of the adsorption groove is formed smaller than the size of the patch (the limitation “wherein the size of the adsorption groove is formed smaller than the size of the patch” is interpreted as an intended use limitation since “the patch” is not positively recited, i.e. claim 1 recites “for attaching a patch”; per the modification addressed in claim 16, the applicator of the combination of Kim and Parker discloses an adhesive strip comprising a plurality of grooves, wherein the grooves are in place to act as a suction against a sticker/patch to be placed on a user’s body; thus, in order for the suction cup/grooves/depressions to impart a suction on the sticker/patch, they must be smaller than the ornament, otherwise the sticker/patch would fall into the groove/depression).
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome all previous objections; all previous specification objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome all previous claim objections; all previous claim objections are withdrawn.
35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 7-, 19, 20 in view of Kim (KR20180065869A) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument; accordingly, the arguments regarding claim 16-17 as obvious over Kim in view o Parker are moot.
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument #1 (see page 16 of arguments):
The combination does not teach or suggest the configuration of amended claim 1. Kim cannot supply the claimed configuration because Kim’s applicator lacks a supporting unit that extends from the handle on both sides, that is concavely formed toward the patch-attaching unit, and that supports the patch-attaching unit at both ends thereof.
Response #1:
Kim is not being relied upon for these teachings; rather, Seidler already teaches the claimed structure; Kim is only being relied upon for modification of the material from which Seidler’s applicator is formed, i.e. to modify Seidler’s applicator to be formed of an elastic material. Modifying Seidler’s applicator to be formed of an elastic material, by definition, would permit Seidler’s applicator to have the “elastically-deforming-and-restoring supporting unit required by claim 1”.
Argument #2:
The proposed modification would change Seidler’s principle of operation because in Seidler, the supporting structure remains stiff and serves to transmit the user’s actuation of the handles to the flexible band; it is the band that deflects. Modifying Seidler so that its supporting structure elastically deforms and restores, rather than remaining stiff to actuate the band, would contradict the very operation of the Office Action attributes to Seidler.
Response #2:
Seidler discloses different means for operating the applicator, only one embodiment requires “actuation of the handles”, as indicated in Seidler Figure 5. Thus, the embodiments of Figures 1-4 do not require any actuation of handles. Further, Seidler discloses that the applicator of Figures 1-4 may be formed of plastic (refer to Seidler Column 2, line 50), which is a material that may be formed to have some elasticity/flexibility. Further still, the claims do not require any requisite level of flexibility/ elasticity, i.e. it is permissible for the supporting structure to exhibit some flexibility/elasticity but to be more rigid than that of the strip. Because the support structure is interpreted to be more rigid than that of the patch-attaching unit, it does not mean that the support structure has zero flexibility/elasticity.
Argument #3:
With respect to claim 18, applicant additionally observes that the rejection is internally inconsistent: the Office Action maps the supporting unit to be more stiff than that of the patch-attaching unit, while the same rejection modifies that same supporting unit to be elastically deformable.
Response #3:
A material can exhibit elasticity and still be more rigid than another material that also has elasticity, i.e. it is permissible for the supporting structure to exhibit some flexibility/elasticity but to be more rigid than that of the strip. Because the support structure is interpreted to be more rigid than that of the patch-attaching unit, it does not mean that the support structure has zero flexibility/elasticity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
