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 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.
Examiner notes that the claim limitations that use the word “means” include “a latching means with sealing means for sealing with respect to the opening in the lid of the container” in claim 15, with corresponding structure found in the specification and drawings to be seal 36 in Fig. 2 and Page 10, lines 28-29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites “a rod-shaped or cylindrical arrangement, comprising a pressure unit, a regulating unit and a tapping unit” in lines 3-4, followed by “wherein the tapping unit can be moved from a transport and storage position, in which it is plugged into the arrangement, into a use position, in which it is removed from the arrangement and is flow-connected to the arrangement” in lines 6-8. The use of the term “it” is ambiguous, since it is unclear whether “it” in this context refers to the tapping unit, and if so, what structural relationship is required for the tapping unit to be “plugged into”, “removed from”, or “flow connected to” the arrangement, considering the tapping unit itself is recited as a component of the arrangement (e.g., is the tapping unit required to be engaged/disengaged with a structure in the regulating unit and/or pressure unit?).
Similarly, the use of the term “its” in lines 14 and 20 is ambiguous. See below regarding this usage in claims 1 and 11-12.
The claim recites “wherein, in the region of the sealing housing, the riser pipe opens into the sealing housing and, in the interior of the sealing housing, opens into an internal flow channel” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the region of the sealing housing” in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12:
Claim 1 recites “in which sealing housing the tapping unit is arranged as far as possible in its transport and storage position” in lines 14-15, and “wherein the elastic flow connection is configured as an elastic hose which is just so long that the tapping unit can be moved into its use position” in lines 19-20. It is unclear to which feature the term “its” refers in these limitations, and whether these limitations are intended to require any particular structural relationships between the components with respect to the “transport and storage position” and the “use position” (e.g., if “its” refers to the tapping unit, are any other features required to remain stationary when the tapping unit changes position?).
Claim 11 recites “the transport position” and “an actuating position” in line 3, and claim 12 recites “the transport position” in line 2. It is unclear whether these terms refer to the “transport and storage position” and/or “use position” recited in claim 1 (in particular, it is unclear whether there is sufficient antecedent basis for “the transport position”).
Regarding claims 6-7, each claim refers to a “pressure cartridge” (line 4 of claim 6; line 4 of claim 7). It is unclear whether this is the same as the “gas cartridge” recited in line 11 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “an overpressure protection means, which, in addition to a seal ring, comprises a rupture disk loaded with spring force provided between the regulating unit and the tapping unit” in lines 2-4. It is unclear which feature the underlined phrase is intended to modify. Additionally, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “rupture disk” in claim 8 appears to be used by the claim to mean an element that lifts from a seal against a spring force, allowing pressure to escape past the element (see the Specification, Page 13, line 32 - Page 14, line 6), while the accepted meaning is a “device used to prevent the unsafe over-pressurization or under-pressurization of a process vessel. In the event of excess internal pressure, the disc will rupture. It consists of a thin disc of corrosion-resistant metal whose thickness is determined by the pressure it is designed to contain” (see cited NPL reference “Dictionary of Chemical Engineering”). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “a tamper-proof seal [. . .] closes a free end of the tapping channel which tamper-proof seal, when the tapping unit is pulled out of the sealing housing by means of the handling member, detaches or breaks irreversibly and opens the tapping channel for a free outlet” in lines 2-6. This language is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether the phrase “which tamper-proof seal” is intended to begin a new limitation or continue from the preceding one, considering that there is no punctuation between “a free end of the tapping channel” and “which tamper-proof seal”. Further, it is unclear whether the recited “free end” is different from the “free outlet” (Examiner notes that the specification describes “the free end of the tapping channel, that is to say the outlet”; see Page 6, line 32).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the opening in a lid of the container” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the opening” in the claim.
The remaining claims are dependent upon at least claim 1, and thus inherit its deficiencies. In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grill (US 2006/0169725) in view of Weber (US 6,260,823).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Grill discloses a tapping and regulating device (20; Figs. 1-3) for dispensing a liquid from a container (see the Abstract), as well as a container (as claimed in claim 16) with the tapping and regulating device (22; see Fig. 1), the device having a rod-shaped or cylindrical arrangement (“The main assembly of the beverage dispenser is mounted within closed end tubular member 24”; Paragraph 0012; see Fig. 1), comprising a pressure unit (32 with 36, 42), a regulating unit (34) and a tapping unit (38 with 40), wherein the tapping unit can be moved from a transport and storage position, in which it is plugged into the arrangement (Fig. 1), into a use position, in which it is removed from the arrangement and is flow-connected to the arrangement (via 30 passing through 24; see Figs. 1-3), and wherein the removed tapping unit can be attached to the container (see notch in 38 receiving edge of container 22 in Fig. 3), wherein the pressure unit comprises, as lower housing part, an end-side cartridge housing (portion of 42 surrounding 32) with a gas cartridge (32) arranged therein, wherein a riser pipe (lower portion of 30) for pressure-induced rising of the liquid is configured outside the cartridge housing (see Figs. 1-3),
wherein a sealing housing (upper portion of 24) adjoins the end-side cartridge housing as a second housing part (24 and 42 are separate housing components in contact with each other),
and wherein, in the region of the sealing housing, the riser pipe (lower portion of 30 extending to the bottom of the container is considered to be a riser pipe; Paragraph 0012) opens into the sealing housing and, in the interior of the sealing housing, opens into an internal flow channel (portion of 30 that remains inside 24 is considered to be an internal flow channel) which is flow-connected via an elastic flow connection (portion of 30 that extends above 34 and bends to enter 40 in Fig. 3 is considered to be an elastic flow connection) to a tapping channel (40) of the tapping unit (30 connects to 40 at 44; Paragraph 0013; see Fig. 1),
and wherein the elastic flow connection is configured as an elastic hose which is just so long that the tapping unit can be moved into its use position (30 is “both flexible and somewhat stretchable” and “the length of beverage inlet tube 30 provided to accommodate the withdrawal of the dispenser assembly”; Paragraph 0016). Examiner notes that Grill appears to illustrate 30 as a continuous tube, but that the claims do not recite any features that would require the recited portions of the flow path described by Grill to be formed as separate structures.
Grill further discloses that, within the sealing housing, the tapping unit is arranged as far as possible in its transport and storage position (tapping unit abuts 34; see Fig. 1) such that the tapping unit occupies space up to a free end of the sealing housing, and additionally that the sealing housing is closed off at the free end by a removable seal (at 48; see Paragraph 0014; Fig. 1). However, according to Examiner’s best understanding, the claim is presently interpreted to require a structure that remains fixed to the tapping unit itself to cover the free end of the sealing housing. Grill does not explicitly disclose such a feature.
Weber teaches a tapping unit (see especially the embodiment of Fig. 7) formed with a body (inner tube 58) that is pulled from a sealing housing (outer tube 57 with seal 56) via a handling member (tab 64 on flange 63) from a transport position into an actuating position (see solid and dashed line positions in Fig. 7), in which sealing housing the tapping unit is arranged as far as possible in its transport and storage position (see solid line position in Fig. 7) and closes off the sealing housing at a free end (see Fig. 7 in which 63 covers the opening of the sealing housing in which 58 slides out). Weber teaches this configuration as a means of implementing a tap on a container for drinks, with the tap being movable between a closed position and an open position via a grip located on the outside of the container (see the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of Grill with a tapping unit having a flange that closes off the sealing housing at a free end, as taught by Weber, in order to provide a grip located on the outside of the container. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results, and would have recognized that such a structure would improve the device of Grill by facilitating the movement of the tapping unit into or out of the sealing housing.
Regarding claim 3, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 1, and Grill further discloses that a middle housing part is configured between the two housing parts, or a transition region is configured in the two housing parts by way of the regulating unit (34 is between the lower portion of 42 and the upper portion of 24; an upper portion of 42 partially surrounds 34; see right side of the arrangement in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 1, and Grill further discloses that an overpressure protection means (see Paragraph 0020; Fig. 6b), which, in addition to a seal ring (102), comprises a rupture disk loaded with spring force (see 84 acting on seat of 86 via spring 80; according to Examiner’s best understanding, this feature satisfies the limitation in light of the description of a “rupture disk” in the Specification; see rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) provided between the regulating unit and the tapping unit (e.g., when used in the embodiment of Figs. 1-3, as described in Paragraph 0017, the overpressure protection means would be at the top end of 34).
Regarding claim 9, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 1, and Grill further discloses that the tapping unit comprises a tap head (“a beverage dispenser head comprising a dispensing valve 38 and a diffuser 40”; Paragraph 0013), with the tapping channel which adjoins the elastic hose (30 connects to 40 at 44; Paragraph 0013; see Fig. 1), and a tap handle which serves for actuation purposes (see handle connected to 38 in the Figures).
Regarding claim 10, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 9, and Grill further discloses that the tapping unit comprises a valve barrel which gradually opens or closes the tapping channel upon actuation of the tap handle (valve 38 has a barrel shape and controls dispensing of the contents of the container; Paragraph 0014; see the Figures).
Regarding claim 11, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 9. When modified as described above regarding claim 1, the tapping unit would also include, at a front-side end, a handling member for pulling the tapping unit out of the transport position into the actuating position (tab 64 cited above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 11. Grill further discloses a tamper-proof seal (48; see Paragraph 0014; Fig. 1), but does not describe the claimed relationship between the seal and the tapping channel.
However, Weber teaches a device characterized in that, in a transport position (the closed position; see Fig. 7) a tamper-proof seal (65) connects a tap head (58 via flange 63) releasably to a sealing housing (65 is firmly connected to 57; Col. 5, lines 43-50) and closes a free end of a tapping channel (by holding the tapping unit in the closed position) which tamper-proof seal, when the tapping unit is pulled out of the sealing housing by means of the handling member (see above regarding claim 1), detaches or breaks irreversibly and opens the tapping channel for the free outlet (Col. 5, lines 51-54).
When modifying the device of Grill to have the flange and handling member of Weber, as described above regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to also provide the flange and handling member with the tamper-proof seal taught by Weber, instead of or in addition to seal 48 of Grill, since Weber teaches that this feature is appropriate for use with the modified configuration. According to the teaching of Weber, the tapping channel of the combined invention would be configured to be exposed as the seal is broken (i.e., as the tapping unit is pulled out of the sealing housing by means of the handling member), thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 9, and Grill further discloses that a clamping device which serves to plug the tap head in a clamping manner onto an edge or fold of the container is provided in the tap head (see notch in 38 receiving edge of container 22 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the device of claim 1, and Grill further discloses that, at a free end, the sealing housing has a flange or a peripheral shoulder for external contact with an edge of the opening in a lid of the container (see connection at 26 in Fig. 1 and flange/shoulder with notch visible in Fig. 2 for receiving container opening edge; Paragraph 0012). This would further be consistent with the modification described above regarding claim 1, in accordance with the teaching of Weber (see 56 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the tapping and regulating device as claimed in claim 14. Grill illustrates a notch for receiving container opening edge, as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose that the sealing housing has a latching means with sealing means. However, Grill notes that “[t]his connection may be by way of various well-known means and is a matter of design choice”; Paragraph 0012).
Furthermore, Weber teaches a similar notched configuration of the sealing housing (see connection to container 55 in Fig. 7) with a flange or shoulder (flange of 56 on outside of container) and that, below or behind the flange or the shoulder, the sealing housing has a latching means (56 is “firmly anchored in a hole of the party keg 55”; Col. 5, lines 28-29) with sealing means for sealing with respect to the opening in the lid of the container (56 is a seal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Grill-Weber with a sealing housing having a latching means with sealing means, as taught by Weber, since Weber teaches that this feature is appropriate for use with the modified configuration. Since Grill is silent as to the details of the connection, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Weber providing a suitable example.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grill in view of Weber, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paauwe (US 2011/0036414).
Regarding claims 6-7, Grill-Weber in combination discloses the tapping and regulating device as claimed in claim 1, but neither reference discloses that the pressure unit comprises a pressure sleeve with a screw-in sleeve with a valve tappet, or that the regulating unit comprises a membrane which acts on the valve tappet and is subjected to the pressure of a pressure chamber. However, Grill notes that “regulator 34 may be in accordance with any well-known pressure regulator design” (Paragraph 0017).
Paauwe discloses a pressure regulator (3) having a pressure unit and a regulating unit (Paragraph 0035). Paauwe teaches that the pressure unit (14; see the embodiment of Fig. 2A for example) comprises a pressure sleeve (25) with a screw-in sleeve (lower portion of 25) with a valve tappet (55) which can be actuated via the regulating unit (16) which is operatively connected to it (Paragraph 0038), wherein a pressure cartridge (13) is screwed into the screw-in sleeve (Paragraph 0042) and can be actuated via the valve tappet (Paragraph 0038).
Paauwe further teaches that the regulating unit comprises a membrane (movement element 18, exemplified in Fig. 2A as piston 28, “can also be formed or comprise a flexible membrane fastened, for instance, in the housing”; Paragraph 0059), which acts on the valve tappet (Paragraph 0038) and is subjected to the pressure of a pressure chamber (20) which is configured between the pressure sleeve and the membrane (Paragraph 0036; see Fig. 2A), and opens or closes the pressure cartridge via the valve tappet counter to the pressure of a pressure compressor which is loaded with spring force (19 provides pressure on 28 via spring 29 in the embodiment of Fig. 2A; movement element 18 operates on valve tappet 55 and valve body 48 to open and close opening 50; see Paragraphs 0037-0040). Paauwe teaches that this combination of pressure unit and regulating unit results in a pressure regulator that provides improved performance over the previous state of the art in beverage containers tapped for pressurized dispensing, such as a beer keg (Paragraphs 0004-0006, 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Grill-Weber with a pressure unit having a pressure sleeve and a regulating unit having a membrane, as taught by Paauwe, in order to provide improved pressure regulation for dispensing a beverage. Since Grill notes that any regulating units known in the art could be compatible with the device, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Paauwe providing an example of a compatible regulating unit and associated pressure unit that are suitable for the stated purpose of the device, namely to provide a dispensing force in a beverage container (see the Abstract of Grill).
Response to Arguments
In consideration of Applicant’s Remarks dated 7/20/2026, the following responses are made corresponding to the respective sections of the Remarks.
Regarding “Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112”:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 2 (now incorporated into claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner accepts Applicant’s interpretation that the limitation modified by the phrase “as far as possible” requires the tapping unit to be “prevented from being inserted any further into the sealing housing” in the transport and storage position (see Remarks, third paragraph of this section). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration necessitated by the amendment’s change in scope, and in view of the clarification provided in the above-noted passage, new grounds of rejection are made herein. Specifically, the claim is now being interpreted to require the device to have a structural feature(s) preventing further insertion of the tapping unit in the sealing housing while covering the opening of the sealing housing in which the tapping unit is inserted. It is noted that new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also made with respect to the use of indefinite language in the amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 4 (now incorporated into claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitation “wherein, in the region of the sealing housing, the riser pipe opens into the sealing housing and, in the interior of the sealing housing, opens into an internal flow channel” to mean that “the riser pipe comprises an opening arranged in a region, more precisely the interior, of the sealing housing” (Remarks, fourth and fifth paragraphs of this section). Examiner does not consider this to be apparent from the claim language, and thus rejects the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis for “the region”. In light of this indefiniteness, it is further noted that it is unclear how the recited limitations are intended to impact the structure and/or structural relationships of the recited features (e.g., with respect to any requirements of structure that would restrict or regulate the flow of liquid in the device).
Regarding “Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103”:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the housing parts of Grill have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Grill does not disclose that the assembly includes two adjoined housing parts” and refers to “the single piece housing” of Grill (Remarks, third and fourth paragraphs of this section). As described in the rejection of claim 2 in the previous Office Action dated 4/23/2026, (and repeated herein) elements 24 and 42 are cited as disclosing the two adjoined housing parts. Applicant references additional limitations of amended claim 1 that are substantially the same as those addressed in claims 4-5 of the previous Office Action, but similarly fails to specify any distinctions from the disclosure of Grill. Examiner acknowledges that the instant invention contains structure and functions not disclosed by Grill, but notes that, according to Examiner’s best understanding of the claims, these features are not presently claimed. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art, the relevant structures must be further delineated in the claim language.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation requiring a tapping unit that “closes off the sealing housing at the free end” 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. As described above regarding the clarification and amendment of the associated limitation, further search and consideration was necessitated, which has resulted in the new rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, applying the teaching of Weber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of devices having various features claimed in the independent claim of the instant application.
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 October 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights