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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 05/19/2026, filed with the office on 08/07/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendments of the claims, the provisional double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13-15 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 13-15 are amended. Claims 3-8 and 12 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 7, 2026, with respect to rejection of claims for reciting an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, on page 6 of its reply, Applicant argues in first paragraph that the claims recite a practical application because the “wall of the pulp container is a material that, unlike glass, is diffuse and largely opaque and therefore cannot be reliably inspected using conventional transmission-based imaging”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not recite the material property of the container (i.e. being diffuse and opaque). Additionally, Applicant argues that the claims apply “a specific technical solution, including a particular concentric dual-illumination geometry combined with pulsed, sequential image capture, to a specific technical problem”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language recites “the first lighting device is configured in such a way that light from the light source is radiated through the mouth of the pulp container; a second lighting device configured to diffusely illuminate the side wall of the pulp container from the outside and arranged concentrically around the first lighting device”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes the use of any light fixture with multiple light sources (central and concentric lights) that illuminate an object from different angles. These additional elements (central and concentric lights) are merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1 and 9, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are: “means of a second lighting device” in claim 9.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “second lighting device” and “light source” in claims 1 and 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: schematics depicted in Fig. 3-4, and applicant’s specification: ¶0055: “the light sources 10 b can also be what are known as chip-on-board LEDs, which are arranged close together in order to achieve a high luminance” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 9 recite an apparatus and a method for image-based container inspection. With respect to analysis of independent claims 1 and 9:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to an apparatus and a method and therefore, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, consider independent claim 9, the steps of “illuminating a part of an inner wall of the pulp container”, “capturing a first image by means of a camera”, “diffusely illuminating the side wall of the pulp container from the outside by means of a second lighting device”, “capturing a second image by means of the camera by allowing the light from the second lighting device”5, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers human activity. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas methods of organizing human activity, i.e., managing, planning, or conducting human behavior, which includes operating generic components i.e. two lights and a camera to collect data i.e. capturing an image.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., first/second lighting device and a camera are merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2, 10, 11 and 13-15 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartrumpf et al. (US 2016/0072993 A1) in view of Dag (US 2024/0270433 A1”) and in further view of Vom et al. (US 2019/0064496 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hartrumpf teaches, Apparatus for optically inspecting (Hartrumpf, ¶0001: “Apparatuses and methods of the above mentioned type can be used for inspecting container glasses”) comprising: a first lighting device comprising a light source (Hartrumpf, ¶0001: “comprising at least one light source”) and an optical system having a reflector and/or a lens, (Hartrumpf, ¶0014: “use a reflector which reflects incident light”) wherein a mouth of the first lighting device (Hartrumpf, ¶0017: “the light source in the container or above the container opening”) such that light from the first lighting device can be emitted into the (Hartrumpf, ¶0017: “above the container opening since each point in the inner wall can be illuminated in this way”) and wherein the optical system of the first lighting device is configured in such a way that light from the light source is radiated (Hartrumpf, ¶0042: “a light cone 31, which is reflected into the capturing area 22 of the image capturing device 2 via a beam splitter”) through the mouth of the (Hartrumpf, ¶0017: “the light source in the container or above the container opening”) (Hartrumpf, ¶0029: “a different light source, which illuminates the object from different angles and/or from different directions”) a camera which is configured to register light (Hartrumpf, ¶0040: “the image capturing device 2 can be a generally known electronic camera”) from the first lighting device passing through a side wall of the (Hartrumpf, ¶0054: “light incident from the exterior via the side wall 53 is reflected on the reflector 6 and is reflected back to the image capturing device”) and thus to capture a first image of the side wall of the (Hartrumpf, ¶0055: “and therefore different images of the side wall 53 can be taken”) to detect a damage in the side wall, (Hartrumpf, ¶0002: “thus detect contaminations, cracks or irregularities of form”) and wherein the first lighting device and the second lighting device are configured to emit pulsed light, and (Hartrumpf, ¶0028: “light source can be switched on or off”) wherein the camera is configured to capture a second image (Hartrumpf, ¶0029: “use an image capturing device for the second image”) by allowing the light from the second lighting device (Hartrumpf, ¶0029: “second image can be produced using a different light source, which illuminates the object from different angles”) to be reflected or scattered on the outside of the side wall to strike the camera. (Hartrumpf, ¶0049: “a second image capturing device is available which captures the light emitted from the dark field illumination 7 and reflected on the object”). However, Hartrumpf does not explicitly teach, a pulp container and a second lighting device configured to diffusely illuminate the side wall of the pulp container from the outside and arranged concentrically around the first lighting device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Dag teaches a pulp container. (Dag, ¶0012: “the container made of fiber material, may be produced from an aqueous pulp”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf using the teachings of Dag to introduce a pulp container. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to substitute the glass container with the pulp container as described above and achieve the predictable result of inspecting a pulp container using images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf and Dag to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Hartrumpf and Dag does not explicitly teach, a second lighting device configured to diffusely illuminate the side wall of the pulp container from the outside and arranged concentrically around the first lighting device.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Vom teaches, a second lighting device configured to diffusely illuminate (Vom, ¶0107: “outer ring of LEDs 180 are used to create an even ring of light which in preferred embodiments is passed through the diffuser 172”) the side wall of the pulp container from the outside (Vom, ¶0021: “defects such as scratches and packaging tears… projecting light at an angle to the surface of an object”) and arranged concentrically around the first lighting device. (Vom, ¶0107: “outer ring of LEDs 180 are used to create an even ring of light which in preferred embodiments is passed through the diffuser 172”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag using the teachings of Vom to introduce a second light arranged concentrically around the first light. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of an illuminating and inspecting both the inside and the outer surface of a container for defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag and Vom to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Hartrumpf teaches, Method for optically inspecting (Hartrumpf, ¶0001: “methods of the above mentioned type can be used for inspecting container glasses”) comprising: illuminating a part of an inner wall (Hartrumpf, ¶0017: “each point in the inner wall can be illuminated in this way”; also see fig. 1) of the first lighting device, (Hartrumpf, ¶0017: “the light source in the container or above the container opening”) wherein the first lighting device comprises a light source (Hartrumpf, ¶0001: “comprising at least one light source”) and an optical system having a reflector and/or a lens, (Hartrumpf, ¶0014: “use a reflector which reflects incident light”) and wherein the optical system of the first lighting device is configured in such a way that light from the light source is radiated (Hartrumpf, ¶0042: “a light cone 31, which is reflected into the capturing area 22 of the image capturing device 2 via a beam splitter”) through the mouth of the , (Hartrumpf, ¶0017: “the light source in the container or above the container opening”) and capturing a first image by means of a camera (Hartrumpf, ¶0040: “the image capturing device 2 can be a generally known electronic camera”) by registering light from the first lighting device that passes through a side wall of the (Hartrumpf, ¶0054: “light incident from the exterior via the side wall 53 is reflected on the reflector 6 and is reflected back to the image capturing device”) and strikes the camera to (Hartrumpf, ¶0055: “and therefore different images of the side wall 53 can be taken”) detect a damage in the side wall, (Hartrumpf, ¶0002: “thus detect contaminations, cracks or irregularities of form”) and (Hartrumpf, ¶0029: “a different light source, which illuminates the object from different angles and/or from different directions”) and capturing a second image by means of the camera (Hartrumpf, ¶0029: “use an image capturing device for the second image”) by allowing the light from the second lighting device (Hartrumpf, ¶0029: “second image can be produced using a different light source, which illuminates the object from different angles”) that is reflected or scattered on the outside of the side wall to strike the camera, (Hartrumpf, ¶0049: “a second image capturing device is available which captures the light emitted from the dark field illumination 7 and reflected on the object”) wherein the first lighting device and the second lighting device emit pulsed light. (Hartrumpf, ¶0028: “light source can be switched on or off”). However, Hartrumpf does not explicitly teach, a pulp container and diffusely illuminating the side wall of the .
In an analogous field of endeavor, Dag teaches a pulp container. (Dag, ¶0012: “the container made of fiber material, may be produced from an aqueous pulp”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf using the teachings of Dag to introduce a pulp container. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to substitute the glass container with the pulp container as described above and achieve the predictable result of inspecting a pulp container using images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf and Dag to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 9. However, the combination of Hartrumpf and Dag does not explicitly teach, diffusely illuminating the side wall of the .
In another analogous field of endeavor, Vom teaches, diffusely illuminating (Vom, ¶0107: “outer ring of LEDs 180 are used to create an even ring of light which in preferred embodiments is passed through the diffuser 172”) the side wall of the (Vom, ¶0021: “defects such as scratches and packaging tears… projecting light at an angle to the surface of an object”) by means of a second lighting device, which is arranged concentrically around the first lighting device. (Vom, ¶0107: “outer ring of LEDs 180 are used to create an even ring of light which in preferred embodiments is passed through the diffuser 172”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag using the teachings of Vom to introduce a second light arranged concentrically around the first light. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of an illuminating and inspecting both the inside and the outer surface of a container for defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag and Vom to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Claims 2, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartrumpf et al. (US 2016/0072993 A1) in view of Dag (US 2024/0270433 A1”), in further view of Vom et al. (US 2019/0064496 A1) and still in further view of Kress et al. (US 2018/0195974 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom teaches, Apparatus according to claim 1. However, the combination of Hartrumpf, Dag and Vom does not explicitly teach, wherein the camera is further configured to detect a label applied to the side wall of the pulp container or an imprint applied to the side wall of the pulp container.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kress teaches, wherein the camera is further configured to (Kress, ¶0031: “the cameras 118 are configured to simultaneously capture images of the first container”) detect a label applied to the side wall of the pulp container or an imprint applied to the side wall of the pulp container. (Kress, ¶0024: “detecting defects in labels applied to the sidewall of the container”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom using the teachings of Kress to introduce detecting a container label. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identification of container information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag, Vom and Kress to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom teaches, Method according to claim 9. However, the combination of Hartrumpf, Dag and Vom does not explicitly teach, wherein a label attached to the side wall of the pulp container is detected by means of the camera.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kress teaches, wherein a label attached to the side wall of the pulp container is detected (Kress, ¶0024: “detecting defects in labels applied to the sidewall of the container”) by means of the camera. (Kress, ¶0006: “cameras capture respective images of the exterior surface of the sidewall of the container”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom using the teachings of Kress to introduce detecting a container label. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identification of container information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag, Vom and Kress to obtain the invention in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Hartrumpf in view of Dag, in further view of Vom and still in further view of Kress teaches, Method according to claim 10, wherein the pulp container is rotated about its longitudinal axis, (Hartrumpf, ¶0049: “the object 5 is either rotated with an assigned support”) and wherein simultaneously a label applied to the side wall of the pulp container or an imprint applied to the side wall of the pulp container is detected. (Kress, ¶0024: “detecting defects in labels applied to the sidewall of the container”).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Hartrumpf, Dag and Kress references presented in the rejection of claim 10, apply to claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 11 is met by Hartrumpf, Dag, Vom and Kress.
Regarding claim 13, Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom teaches, Method according to claim 9. However, the combination of Hartrumpf and Dag does not explicitly teach, wherein the first image and the second image are captured at a time interval of 100 µs or less.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kress teaches, wherein the first image and the second image are captured at a time interval of 100 µs or less. (Kress, ¶0006: “illuminated for a relatively short amount of time (e.g., on the order of tens of microseconds). The cameras capture respective images of the exterior surface of the sidewall of the container while such surface is being illuminated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom using the teachings of Kress to introduce a strobe light. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of quickly inspecting the sides of a container using images from different angles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag, Vom and Kress to obtain the invention in claim 13.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartrumpf et al. (US 2016/0072993 A1) in view of Dag (US 2024/0270433 A1”), in further view of Vom et al. (US 2019/0064496 A1) and still in further view of Micheels et al. (US 7,840,360 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom teaches, Method according to claim 9. However, the combination of Hartrumpf, Dag and Vom does not explicitly teach, wherein the first light of the lighting device is or comprises near-infrared light.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Micheels teaches, wherein the first light of the lighting device is or comprises near-infrared light. (Micheels, col. 4, lines 15-16: “one or more NIR light sources disposed opposite the NIR imaging means”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag and in further view of Vom using the teachings of Micheels to introduce near-infrared light. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying defects and contaminants in an object being inspected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag, Vom and Micheels to obtain the invention in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Hartrumpf in view of Dag, in further view of Vom and still in further view of Micheels teaches, Method according to claim 14, wherein the first light of the lighting device has a wavelength range between 800 nm and 1500 nm. (Micheels, col. 7, lines 21-23: “one or more NIR light sources having a wavelength in the range of about 850-1700 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartrumpf in view of Dag, in further view of Vom and still in further view of Micheels using the additional teachings of Micheels to introduce light with a specific near-infrared wavelength range. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of penetrating the surface of certain material for identifying defects/contaminants in the specific material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hartrumpf, Dag, Vom and Micheels to obtain the invention in claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-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, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
