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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the response filed on April 8, 2026. No claims have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 1-15 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendorf (2020/0384613) in view Blumenthal et al. (2019/0076994) and/or Wu (2015/0283681).
In reference to claims 1 and 10, Bendorf discloses a tool having first (105) and second (110) handles and first (115) and second (120) jaws (Figure 1), the tool comprising:
a first jaw pivot (145) pivotably coupling the second jaw to the first handle (Figure 1);
a second jaw pivot (150) pivotably coupling the second jaw to the second handle (Figure 1);
a center link (147) coupled to the first handle at a slideable pivot (i.e. between 185 and 175, Figure 1) and coupled to the second handle at a link pivot (227, Figure 3); and
a release lever (187) rotatably coupled to the second handle and including an abutment (192, Figure 2) protruding substantially perpendicularly with respect to a longitudinal length of the release lever, and the abutment is adapted to interact with the center link (i.e. at 190) to cause the first and second jaws to release from a locked state (paragraph 16).
Bendorf lacks specifically disclosing that,
a first distance between the second jaw pivot and the link pivot is about 34% to about 70% of a second distance between the second jaw pivot and the first jaw pivot.
However, Bendorf does disclose that, “While particular embodiments have been shown and described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that changes and modifications may be made without departing from the broader aspects of the inventors' contribution.” (paragraph 20).
In addition, Blumenthal et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) where the dimensions of the tool can be altered (see paragraph 63 disclosing that, "Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description…Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, many modifications are possible (e.g., variations in sizes, dimensions, structures, shapes and proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements, use of materials, colors, orientations, etc.) without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter described herein."). Thus, as such the dimensions of the tool (i.e. including the first and second distances) are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing these dimensions also changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2).
Furthermore, Wu also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) having a first distance (L2) located between a second jaw pivot (C2) and a link pivot (C3) and a second distance (see figure below) located between the second jaw pivot and a first jaw pivot (C1). The distances being selected “so as to be effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, in view of Blumenthal et al. and/or Wu, the first and second distances are considered as being a result effective variable because changing the first and second distances also changes the changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the “effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31 of Wu). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Bendorf device to have; a first distance between the second jaw pivot and the link pivot is about 34% to about 70% of a second distance between the second jaw pivot and the first jaw pivot, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of at least the first distance or adjusting the dimensions of the first distance and the second distance for the reasons previously discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bendorf with the first distance between the second jaw pivot and the link pivot being about 34% to about 70% of a second distance between the second jaw pivot and the first jaw pivot, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Bendorf would not operate differently with the claimed dimension of the first distance, since the device is used for gripping an object (see paragraph 2 of Bendorf), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimension indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the dimension of the first distance “may be a first distance” (see paragraph 14) or that the dimension of the first distance is “about” the claimed range (see claim 1).
In reference to claims 2 and 11, Bendorf lacks specifically disclosing that,
the first distance is about 43.5% of the second distance
However, Bendorf does disclose that, “While particular embodiments have been shown and described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that changes and modifications may be made without departing from the broader aspects of the inventors' contribution.” (paragraph 20).
In addition, Blumenthal et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) where the dimensions of the tool can be altered (see paragraph 63 disclosing that, "Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description…Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, many modifications are possible (e.g., variations in sizes, dimensions, structures, shapes and proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements, use of materials, colors, orientations, etc.) without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter described herein."). Thus, as such the dimensions of the tool (i.e. including the first and second distances) are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing the dimensions also changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2).
Furthermore, Wu also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) having a first distance (L2) located between a second jaw pivot (C2) and a link pivot (C3) and a second distance (see figure above) located between the second jaw pivot and a first jaw pivot (C1). The distances being selected “so as to be effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31).
Thus, in view of Blumenthal et al. and/or Wu, the first and second distances are considered as being a result effective variable because changing the first and second distances also changes the changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the “effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31 of Wu). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Bendorf device to have; the first distance being about 43.5% of the second distance, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of the first distance for the reasons previously discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bendorf with the first distance being about 43.5% of the second distance, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Bendorf would not operate differently with the claimed dimension of the first distance indicated above and since the device is used for gripping an object (see paragraph 2 of Bendorf), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimension. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the dimension of the first distance “may be a first distance” (see paragraph 14) or that first distance is about 43.5% of the second distance (see claim 2).
In reference to claims 3, 4, 12 and 13, Bendorf lacks specifically disclosing that,
the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inch;
the first distance is about 0.637 inches.
However, Bendorf does discloses that, “While particular embodiments have been shown and described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that changes and modifications may be made without departing from the broader aspects of the inventors' contribution.” (paragraph 20).
In addition, Blumenthal et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) where the dimensions of the tool can be altered (see paragraph 63 disclosing that, "Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description…Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, many modifications are possible (e.g., variations in sizes, dimensions, structures, shapes and proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements, use of materials, colors, orientations, etc.) without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter described herein."). Thus, as such the dimensions of the tool (i.e. including the first and second distances) are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing these dimensions also changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2).
Furthermore, Wu also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) having a first distance (L2) located between a second jaw pivot (C2) and a link pivot (C3) and a second distance (see figure above) located between the second jaw pivot and a first jaw pivot (C1). The distances being selected “so as to be effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31).
Thus, in view of Blumenthal et al. and/or Wu, the first and second distances are considered as being a result effective variable because changing the first and second distances also changes the changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the “effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31 of Wu). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Bendorf device to have; the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inch, the first distance is about 0.637 inches, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of the first distance for the reasons previously discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bendorf with the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inch or with the first distance is about 0.637 inches, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Bendorf would not operate differently with the claimed dimension of the first distance indicated above and since the device is used for gripping an object (see paragraph 2 of Bendorf), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimension. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the dimension of the first distance “may be a first distance” (see paragraph 14) or that the dimension of the first distance is about 0.5 inches or is about 0.637 inches (see claims 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 5, modified Bendorf obviously discloses that the first and second distances provide a clamping force between the first and second jaws that is about 25 times greater than an input force to push the first and second handles together to clamp the first and second jaws, because all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met and thus the first and second distances would obviously provide the same clamping force.
In reference to claim 6, Bendorf discloses further comprising an adjustment screw mechanism (165) having a head (170) on a first end and a contact point (i.e. lower end of end of 175, in Figure 1) on a second end and threads (180) extending at least partially therebetween (paragraph 15), the adjustment screw mechanism being threadably inserted into the first handle for adjusting a gap between the first and second jaws (paragraph 15).
In reference to claim 7, Bendorf discloses that the adjustment screw mechanism is adapted to be rotated clockwise to reduce the gap, and is adapted to be rotated counterclockwise to increase the gap (paragraph 15).
In reference to claim 8, Bendorf discloses that the center link includes a face (i.e. formed as the face/portion of 185 that is engaged with the contact point/lower end of end of 175) and wherein a point of contact of the adjustment screw mechanism abuts the face during an adjustment operation in which the gap is adjusted (Figures 2 and 3).
In reference to claim 9, Bendorf discloses that the release lever (187) includes an extension (i.e. 202) extending from an end (i.e. upper end in Figure 1) of the release lever (Figures 1 and 2), and wherein the center link (147) includes a protrusion (190, paragraph 16) protruding from the center link towards the second handle (Figures 1 and 2), wherein the abutment abuts the protrusion when the first and second jaws are in the locked state (Figure 2) and is spaced from the protrusion when the first and second jaws are in an open state (Figure 3 and paragraphs 16-18).
In reference to claim 14, Bendorf discloses further comprising an adjustment screw mechanism (1650 having a head (170) on a first end and a contact point (i.e. lower end of end of 175, in Figure 1) on a second end and threads (180) extending at least partially therebetween (paragraph 15), the adjustment screw mechanism is threadably inserted into the first handle (paragraph 15), wherein a first line (see various examples the first line in the second figure below) extending through the second jaw pivot and the link pivot and a second line (see figures below) extending through the link pivot and the contact point are disposed apart by an angle of 171 to 172 degrees, because a plurality of first lines can be provided (see second figure below), and at least one of these first lines would obviously provide an angle of 171 to 172 degrees between the first line and the second line, depending on the particular angle that the first line extends between the second jaw pivot and the link pivot. Note, the examiner has included a dotted line in the first figure below showing an angle of 180 degrees for reference.
PNG
media_image2.png
285
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Examples of different angles that obviously include 171-172 degrees)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Second Line)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Examples of First Line)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
519
929
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 15, Bendorf discloses that a first line (see various examples the first line in the figures above) extending through the second jaw pivot and the link pivot and a second line (see figures above) extending through the link pivot and the contact point are disposed apart by an angle of 171 to 172 degrees, because a plurality of first lines can be provided (see figures above), and at least one of these first lines would obviously provide an angle of 171 to 172 degrees between the first line and the second line, depending on the particular angle that the first line extends between the second jaw pivot and the link pivot. Bendorf lacks specifically disclosing that,
the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inch.
However, Bendorf does discloses that, “While particular embodiments have been shown and described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that changes and modifications may be made without departing from the broader aspects of the inventors' contribution.” (paragraph 20).
In addition, Blumenthal et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) where the dimensions of the tool can be altered (see paragraph 63 disclosing that, "Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description…Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, many modifications are possible (e.g., variations in sizes, dimensions, structures, shapes and proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements, use of materials, colors, orientations, etc.) without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter described herein."). Thus, as such the dimensions of the tool (i.e. including the first and second distances) are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing these dimensions also changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2).
Furthermore, Wu also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (Figure 1) having a first distance (L2) located between a second jaw pivot (C2) and a link pivot (C3) and a second distance (see figure above) located between the second jaw pivot and a first jaw pivot (C1). The distances being selected “so as to be effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31).
Thus, in view of Blumenthal et al. and/or Wu, the first and second distances are considered as being a result effective variable because changing the first and second distances also changes the changes the grasping force (see paragraph 5 of Blumenthal et al.) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2 of Blumenthal et al.) and the “effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31 of Wu). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Bendorf device to have; the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inch, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of the first distance for the reasons previously discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bendorf with the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inch, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Bendorf would not operate differently with the claimed dimension of the first distance indicated above and since the device is used for gripping an object (see paragraph 2 of Bendorf), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimension. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the dimension of the first distance “may be a first distance” (see paragraph 14) or that the dimension of the first distance is about 0.5 inches (see claims 3, 4 and 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “However, the claimed invention is not merely a change in dimension. As described above, the claimed invention relates to increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws, compared to conventional locking type plier tools. Blumenthal has nothing to do with increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (also see MPEP 2144 section IV.). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As discussed above, paragraph 63 of Blumenthal discloses
that, "Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description…Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, many modifications are possible (e.g., variations in sizes, dimensions, structures, shapes and proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements, use of materials, colors, orientations, etc.) without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter described herein."). While the mechanical advantage is not explicitly discussed in Blumenthal, this is not required because adjusting at least the first distance or the first distance and the second distance is obvious (or “apparent” in the section above) to one skilled in the art, in order to adjust the grasping force (see paragraph 5) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2). Thus, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to modify the first distance to be within the extremely large range of “about 34% to about 70% of the second distance.” Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant contends that, “However, the claimed invention is not merely a change in dimension. As described above, the claimed invention relates to increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws, compared to conventional locking type plier tools. Blumenthal has nothing to do with increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Again, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (also see MPEP 2144 section IV.). Thus, Blumenthal does not need to explicitly disclose that the modifications are made for any mechanical advantage because this is obvious to one skilled in the art (again see, "Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description...”. Adjusting at least the first distance or the first distance and the second distance is obvious (or “apparent”) to one skilled in the art, in order to adjust the grasping force (see paragraph 5) and/or the torque increasing jaw design (see paragraph 2). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant contends that, “In other words, Blumenthal does not describe any of the claimed dimensions as result effective variables for increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws, and Blumenthal does not describe adjusting the claimed dimensions at all. Therefore, it is not clear as to how or why a person of skill in the art would have ever modified the undefined dimensions of Blumenthal, as claimed.
Here, the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner did not provide any adequate, articulated rationale explaining why it would have been simple routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range, as required by MPEP §2144.05(II)(B). The Examiner incorrectly merely contends that it would have been obvious to modify the various lengths of Bendorf to end up within the claimed ranges of the claimed invention based on the teachings of Blumenthal. However, the Examiner misunderstands the teachings of Blumenthal.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has provided adequate, articulated rationale explaining why it would have been simple routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention (i.e. grasping force and torque increasing jaw design), and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range, as required by MPEP §2144.05(II)(B), as previously discussed in the rejection above. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant contends that, “However, the claimed invention is not merely a change in dimension, and does perform differently than prior art devices. As described above, the claimed invention relates to increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws, compared to conventional locking type plier tools. Wu has nothing to do with increasing a mechanical advantage to enhance force applied by a user to an object gripped between the jaws. Rather, Wu specifically relates to using ratios of lengths of the various components to release the pliers of Wu, without a release lever.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (also see MPEP 2144 section IV.). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As discussed above, Wu teaches of selecting distances of the wrench in order “so as to be effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31). While the mechanical advantage is not explicitly discussed in Wu, this is not required because adjusting at least the first distance or the first distance and the second distance are obvious to one skilled in the art in order “to be effort-saving” (see paragraphs 3, 27 and 31). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant contends that, “Here, the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner failed to provide any adequate, articulated rationale explaining why it would have been simple routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range, as required by MPEP §2144.05(II)(B). The Examiner incorrectly contends that it would have been obvious to modify the various lengths of Bendorf based on the teachings of Wu to end up within the claimed ranges of the claimed invention. However, the Examiner misunderstands the teachings of Wu.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has provided adequate, articulated rationale explaining why it would have been simple routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention (i.e. in order “so as to be effort-saving”) and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range, as required by MPEP §2144.05(II)(B), as previously discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant contends that, “In any event, paragraphs [0023]-[0024] of Applicant's Specification (presented above) clearly describe the criticality.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has reviewed these paragraphs but note that this general disclosure of mechanical advantage is not sufficient in order to properly establish criticality. What prior art is the applicant comparing the current application with? Is the “conventional pliers” as being compared the same prior art as used in the rejection above? Again, adjusting the “sizes, dimensions…proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements” are taught by the prior art (see Blumenthal) “without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter” thereby allowing one skilled in the art to provide the first distance being within the extremely large range of “about 34% to about 70% of the second distance.” Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights