DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed 8 December 2025. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 5,392,949), in view of Rayfield (US 20180168376).
Regarding claim 1, McKenna teaches a device that serves as a lid configured to attach to a cup or glass (figure 1, reference 1: any limitation towards the glass or cup is treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of McKenna is capable of performing the recited function) comprising: a lid (figure 1, reference 1) having an opening (figure 1: the opening is created by lifting top half 23); a bottom part of said lid that is attachable to a top of said cup or glass (figure 1, reference 1); said bottom part of said lid having an attachment point (figure 1 and 2, reference 4); said lid being a separate piece from said cup or glass (figure 1).
McKenna does not explicitly teach said bottom part of said lid having an adhesive on it. However, Rayfield does teach said bottom part (figure 1B, reference 120) of said lid (figure 1B, reference 100) having an adhesive on it (figure 1B, reference 121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of McKenna to include said bottom part of said lid having an adhesive on it, as disclosed by Rayfield, because including the adhesive helps to secure the device on the lip of a beverage container such that foreign substances such as powders or liquids are prevented from entering the beverage container, as explained by Rayfield (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 2, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said opening is made larger or smaller by applying forces to said lid (figure 1 and 4: the opening can be made larger in two situations. First is pulling back the top half, as seen in figure 4, which makes the opening larger. The second way would be pulling slightly on the lid in axial direction which would slightly expand the opening horizontally).
Regarding claim 3, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Rayfield teaches wherein said bottom part of said lid has adhesive (figure 1B, reference 121) on the bottom part of said lid (figure 1B, reference 120) allowing said lid to become attached to said cup or glass (paragraph 21).
McKenna, in view of Rayfield, do not explicitly teach the adhesive being double sided tape which when pulled away from said lid leaves the adhesive on the bottom part of said lid. McKenna, in view of Rayfield disclose the claimed invention except that modified McKenna discloses an adhesive instead of double sided tape. Buck (US 20130068773) shows that adhesives and double sided tape was an equivalent structure known in the art (paragraph 97). In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Buck (US 20130068773) represents evidence that adhesives and double sided tape were art-recognized equivalent structures for bonding. Therefore, because these two adhesives were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an adhesive for double sided tape. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 4, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Furthermore, Rayfield teaches said cup or glass has said lid sealed to it (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 5, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said device comprising two separate pieces (figures 1-4, references 23 and 1 [portion of the lid that does not fold back and is attached to the cup]), one of the two separate pieces being a top half of said lid (figures 1-4, reference 23) and another of the two separate pieces being a bottom half of said lid (figures 1-4, reference 1 [portion of the lid that does not fold back and is attached to the cup]) held together at a pivot point so that said top half of said lid pivots with respect to said bottom half of said lid so that the size of the opening changes (figures 1-4: pivot point at reference 41 to close top half 23).
Regarding claim 6, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches the lid being adjustable so that said lid fits different size cups or glasses (column 1, lines 35-41).
Regarding claim 7, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said lid is configured to be attached to an outside surface of said glass or cup (figure 1, reference 5).
Regarding claim 8, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said lid is configured to be attached to an inside surface of said glass or cup (figure 1, reference 5).
Regarding claim 9, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Modified McKenna does not explicitly teach the lid being approximately 84 mm wide by 85.5 mm long. However, it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of modified McKenna to be approximately 84 mm wide by 85.5 mm long because the size of the lid is based on the container for which the device is being placed and is not ordinarily a matter of invention.
Regarding claim 10, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said top half of said lid is in the shape of a semi-circle (figure 1 and 4, reference 23: The top half 23 is in the shape of an arc which is a semi-circle) that attaches to said bottom half of said lid at said pivot point (figure 4, reference 41).
Regarding claim 11, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said opening which creates said opening providing ample amounts of consumption space while still covering majority of said cup or glass (figure 1).
Modified McKenna does not explicitly teach said opening is approximately 28 mm wide at its largest said opening. However, it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of modified McKenna to have the indentation being approximately 28 mm wide at its largest said opening because the size of the indentation is based on the speed at which a user wants the beverage to exit the container and is not ordinarily a matter of invention.
Regarding claim 12, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches the opening of said lid is capable of being large enough for a straw to pass through the lid (figure 1: Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified McKenna is capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 13, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said bottom part of said lid comprises a circular shape (figure 1, reference 1) that features a v-shaped cut-out (figure 1: the v-shaped cut out occurs when lifting top half 23) that allows said lid to expand to fit said cup or glass (figure 1: when the top half 23 is pivoted back to open position, the remaining v-shaped cut out has flexibility to move and is capable of expanding to fit a cup or glass).
Regarding claim 14, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches the lid is capable of being configured to prevent substances from being placed into said cup or glass when said lid is securely fastened to said cup or glass (figure 1 and 4: when top half 31 is moved to the closed position, a substance would be prevented from being placed in a container. Furthermore, this limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified McKenna is capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 18, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Furthermore, McKenna teaches said top half of said lid is on a higher plane then said bottom half of said lid (figure 1: when the top half is folded back, the top half is on a higher p[lane then the bottom half.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 5,392,949), in view of Rayfield (US 20180168376), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thrasher (US 20180177315).
Regarding claim 15, McKenna, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Modified McKenna does not explicitly teach indicia on top of said lid facing an outside of said glass or cup so user can confirm said lid is on said glass that he or she was drinking from. However, Thrasher does teach indicia (figure 3 and 4 and paragraph 22) on top of said lid facing an outside of said glass or cup (figure 3 and 4 and paragraph 22) so user can confirm said lid is on said glass that he or she was drinking from (figure 3 and 4 and paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of modified McKenna to have indicia on top of said lid facing an outside of said glass or cup so a user can confirm said lid is on said glass that said was drinking from, as disclosed by Thrasher, because including the indicia allows for identifying the users’ beverage in a crowded space, as explained by Thrasher (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 16, McKenna, in view of Rayfield and Thrasher, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 15, as shown above. Furthermore, Thrasher teaches said indicia is capable of being specific to said user (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 17, McKenna, in view of Rayfield and Thrasher, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 15, as shown above. Furthermore, Thrasher teaches said lid is configured to be provided by an establishment, each lid capable of having a unique indicia for each person who walks into said establishment (paragraph 22).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,085, in view of Rayfield (US 20180168376).
Regarding claim 1, USP ‘085 (claim 1) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1 except for said bottom part of said lid having an adhesive on it. However, Rayfield does teach said bottom part (figure 1B, reference 120) of said lid (figure 1B, reference 100) having an adhesive on it (figure 1B, reference 121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of USP ‘085 to include said bottom part of said lid having an adhesive on it, as disclosed by Rayfield, because including the adhesive helps to secure the device on the lip of a beverage container such that foreign substances such as powders or liquids are prevented from entering the beverage container, as explained by Rayfield (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 2, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 2) teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Rayfield teaches wherein said bottom part of said lid has adhesive (figure 1B, reference 121) on the bottom part of said lid (figure 1B, reference 120) allowing said lid to become attached to said cup or glass (paragraph 21).
USP ’085, in view of Rayfield, do not explicitly teach the adhesive being double sided tape which when pulled away from said lid leaves the adhesive on the bottom part of said lid. USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, disclose the claimed invention except that modified USP ‘085 discloses an adhesive instead of double sided tape. Buck (US 20130068773) shows that adhesives and double sided tape was an equivalent structure known in the art (paragraph 97). In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Buck (US 20130068773) represents evidence that adhesives and double sided tape were art-recognized equivalent structures for bonding. Therefore, because these two adhesives were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an adhesive for double sided tape. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 4, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Furthermore, Rayfield teaches said cup or glass has said lid sealed to it (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 5, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 1) teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 2) teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 3) teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Rayfield teaches the limitations of claim 8 (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 4) teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 5) teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 6) teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 7) teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 8) teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 9) teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 10) teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 11) teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 12) teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, USP ‘085, in view of Rayfield, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, USP ‘085 (claim 1) teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 1, applicant states “It is not obvious to modify McKenna with Rayfield as Stated by the Examiner, McKenna needs to lift the top part of the lid 23, away from the glass or cup, and if the adhesive were on the lid 23 of McKenna, the lid could not be lifted up to create an opening”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, in response to applicant's argument that the adhesive of Rayfield would be located along the whole skirt of McKenna, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, one of ordinary skill in that art would not apply the adhesive of Rayfield on the entire skirt of McKenna. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the adhesive of Rayfield would only be placed on the skirt of the lid of McKenna where the lid would continually grasp the opening of the container and the portion of the of the lid 23 of McKenna that is lifted and pulled away from the lid would be absent of the adhesive. Therefore, since the prior art discloses the limitations of claim 1, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant states “Examiner states that McKenna teaches opening made larger or smaller by apply forces to lid, pull back top half, makes larger, or pull slightly on lid in axial direction slightly expand opening. However, this could not happen if the lid were adhesively attached to the cup or glass”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above in the rejection of claim 2, the opening can be made larger in two situations. First is pulling back the top half, as seen in figure 4, which makes the opening larger. The second way would be pulling slightly on the lid in axial direction which would slightly expand the opening horizontally. This would be due to the flexibility of the lid while being placed on the container and would not be affected by the adhesive.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant states “for reasons stated in claim 1 and 2, cannot combine McKenna and Rayfield. Further, Buck does not teach a lid attached with double sided tape to a glass. Buck teaches an integrated container that is attached to the lid of a cup with adhesive, not a lid attached to a cup with adhesive. This attaches a cover to the lid. Para 15”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 1 and 2, since those claims remain rejected, the rejection of claim 3 remains proper. Furthermore, applicant is reminded that the cup or glass are not positively recited and the prior art only needs to be capable of performing the recited function. In this case, the prior art is capable of performing the recited function and therefore the claim remains rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant states “Examiner states McKenna teaches device comprise two separate pieces, ref 23 and 1 (portion of lid not fold back attached to cup) one piece top half, 23, other piece bottom half, held at pivot point, so top half pivots respect to bottom half, pivot point close top half. Top half 23 and piece 1 are not two separate pieces, as they are still attached to each other. For this reason and reasons stated above for claim 1, claim 5 is not obvious over prior art”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen from figures 9-11 of the present application (figures which represent the embodiment applicants’ claims are directed towards), the two sperate pieces are attached to one another, as shown below. Furthermore, ever other embodiment also shows the pieces attached to one another (figures 4 and 8). McKenna’s pieces 23 and 1 are also considered separate pieces by considering applicants disclosure and figures.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since the prior art discloses the claim limitations, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding claim 8, applicant states “McKenna teaches lid configured to be attached to inside surface of glass or cup. Nowhere does McKenna show or does the Examiner point to where McKenna is configured to be attached to an inside of a glass or cup. For this reason and the reasons stated above for claim 1, claim 8 is not obvious over the prior art”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in figures 1 and 2 of McKenna, the upside down u-shaped channels 5 would contact and inside surface and outside surface of the glass or cup. Furthermore, applicant is reminded that the cup or glass are not positively recited and the prior art only needs to be capable of performing the recited function. In this case, the prior art is capable of performing the recited function and therefore the claim remains rejected.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant states “McKenna does not teach a top half of lid in shape of semi-circled it is not attached to a bottom half of a lid as they are one piece”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection above, McKenna teaches said top half of said lid is in the shape of a semi-circle (figure 1 and 4, reference 23: The top half 23 is in the shape of an arc which is a semi-circle) that attaches to said bottom half of said lid at said pivot point (figure 4, reference 41). Furthermore, the two pieces are separate and attached as explained above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant states “McKenna teaches that the lid is made of a single element, not a top lid and a bottom of lid. For this reason and the reasons stated above, claim 13 is not obvious over the prior art”. Examiner is unclear how this argument pertains to claim 13 since claim 13 states “said bottom part of said lid comprises a circular shape that features a v-shaped cut-out that allows said lid to expand to fits said cup or glass”. As stated above, claim 13 is taught by the prior art of record and therefore the claim remains rejected.
Regarding claim 14, applicant states “limitation is not positively claimed. For this reason and reasons stated above, claim 14 is not obvious over prior art.”. Examiner is unclear how this argument pertains to claim 14 since claim 14 states “wherein said lid is configured to prevent substances from being placed into said cup or glass when said lid is securely fastened to said cup or glass”. It appears applicant is supporting the examiner view of the claim. As stated above, claim 14 is taught by the prior art of record and therefore the claim remains rejected.
Regarding the rest of the dependent claims, since the prior art discloses the limitations of the claims, the claims remain rejected in view of the prior art of record.
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 JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735