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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 9, 24, 53, 57, and 67 have been amended. Therefore, claims 9, 24, 53-69, and 71-76 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 30, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of "two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis" in claims 9, 24, and 53, lines 13-14, 14-15, and 16-17, respectively, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 24, 53, 63-64, and 72-73 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 9, 24, and 53, lines 15, 16-17, and 18-19, respectively, “the two side surfaces, the arcuate surface” should read “the two generally planar side surfaces, the proximally convex, arcuate surface”
In claim 24, line 19, “a longitudinal axis” should read “the longitudinal axis”
In claim 28, lines 28 and 31, “wall section;” should read “wall section”
In claims 63-64, lines 2-3, “a wall section” should read “the wall section”
In claims 72 and 73, lines 3 and 2, respectively, Examiner notes the status identifier indicates “(Currently Amended)”, however, claims 72 and 73 does not appear to be amended; see MPEP 714
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 24, 53-69, and 71-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the amended claim limitations of “two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis” in lines 13-14, “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in line 15, and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 20-22 appears to be directed to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, with respect to “two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis” in lines 13-14, in at least Figs 2A and 2G, the “two generally planar side surfaces” do not appear to be “extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis”. Further, with respect to “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in line 15 and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 20-22, Applicant’s Specification does not appear to provide a description of “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in line 15 and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 20-22. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 24, the amended claim limitations of “two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis” in lines 14-15, “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in lines 16-17, and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 21-23 appears to be directed to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, with respect to “two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis” in lines 14-15, in at least Figs 2A and 2G, the “two generally planar side surfaces” do not appear to be “extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis”. Further, with respect to “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in lines 16-17 and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 21-23, Applicant’s Specification does not appear to provide a description of “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in lines 16-17 and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 21-23. For the purpose of examination, claim 24 will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 53, the amended claim limitations of “two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis” in lines 16-17, “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in lines 18-19, and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 23-26 appears to be directed to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, with respect to “two generally planar side surfaces extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis” in lines 16-17, in at least Figs 2A and 2G, the “two generally planar side surfaces” do not appear to be “extending generally parallel to the longitudinal axis”. Further, with respect to “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in lines 18-19 and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 23-26, Applicant’s Specification does not appear to provide a description of “the arcuate surface extending through an arc of at least 90 degrees” in lines 18-19 and “a temporary radial flexure of the fastener sleeve occurs elastically along the slit length while the proximal portion of the fastener sleeve remains substantially rigid under installation loads” in lines 23-26. For the purpose of examination, claim 53 will be examined as best understood.
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 9, 24, 53-69, and 71-76 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.
The term “smooth surface” in claims 9, 24, and 53, line 8, 8, and 11, respectively, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth surface” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, claims 9, 24, and 53 will be read as “uninterrupted surface”.
Claims 9, 24, and 53 recites the limitation "the proximal portion" in lines 21, 22, and 24-25, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claims 9, 24, and 53 will be read as “a proximal portion”.
Claims 24 and 53 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in lines 15 and 17, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claims 24 and 53 will be read as “a longitudinal axis”.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the curved interior contour" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 53 will be read as “a curved interior contour”.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the relative axial translation" in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 57 will be read as “a relative axial translation”.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the sleeve" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 57 will be read as “the fastener sleeve”.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the fastener head" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 59 will be read as “a fastener head”.
Claim 72 recites the limitation "the curved exterior surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 72 will be read as “a curved exterior surface”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 63, lines 1-3 recites “wherein the fastener sleeve can translate within the hole to accommodate deflection without loading a wall section”, however, claim 57 in which claim 63 depends from, in lines 25-28 also recites “whereby the relative axial translation of at least one of the fastener and the sleeve within the hole accommodates vertical deflection without impinging on and loading the wall section”. Accordingly, claim 63 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9, 24, 54-56, and 74-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (GB1564221A), hereinafter "Cooper", in view of Fischer (WO2012059199A1), hereinafter "Fischer".
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Cooper teaches a fastener sleeve (Fig 1, plug 10) comprising
a proximal flange (Fig 1, flange 11) with a recessed proximal face (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a face of stage 16a as a recessed proximal face) and a distal facing surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of flange 11 facing legs 14 as a distal facing surface); and
a sleeve length (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates 32mm long) from a proximal end (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Examiner notes an end of head portion 12 at flange 11 as a proximal end) to a distal end (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Examiner notes an end of major portion 13 remote from flange 11 as a distal end) having a distal surface perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (see Figs 1 and 5, Examiner notes end surfaces of legs 14 remote from flange 11 as having a distal surface perpendicular to a longitudinal axis) of the fastener sleeve (10) wherein the fastener sleeve (10) defines a bore (Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, aperture 16) [for removably receiving a fastener (capable of removably receiving, i.e. this is a functional recitation; Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates designed for use with screw sizes 4 to 12) therethrough] with a wall (see Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, Examiner notes a wall of aperture 16 as a wall) of the fastener sleeve (10) defining a curved interior contour (see Figs 2-3) of the bore (16) that extends interiorly (see Figs 2-3) from below (see Figs 2-3) the proximal flange (11) below (see Figs 2-3) the proximal end (see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (10), the curved interior contour (see Figs 2-3) having a smooth surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a surface of stage 16c as having a smooth surface), and a curved exterior contour (see Fig 1) wherein an exterior sleeve diameter tapers (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Cooper indicates a very slight (½°) taper) along the sleeve length (see Fig 1) from the proximal end (see Fig 1) below (see Figs 1-2) the proximal flange (11) to the distal end (see Fig 1) and further wherein the fastener sleeve (10) has one or more distal slits (Fig 1, slots 15) separating (see Figs 1-2, Pg 1, lines 59-63) the fastener sleeve (10) wherein the one or more distal slits (15) define an interior slit boundary (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an interior boundary of upper slot 15 between upper legs 14 as define an interior slit boundary) comprising two generally planar side surfaces (see Fig 1, Examiner notes two adjacent faces of upper legs 14 separated by upper slot 15 as comprising two generally planar side surfaces) extending generally parallel (see Figs 1-2) to the longitudinal axis (see Figs 1 and 5) and a proximally convex, arcuate surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end circumferential surface of upper slot 15 adjacent fin 18 as a proximally convex, arcuate surface) at a proximal slit end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end of upper slot 15 adjacent fin 18 as at a proximal slit end) joining (see Fig 1) the two side surfaces (see Fig 1), the arcuate surface (see Fig 1) extending (see Fig 1) through an arc (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the end circumferential surface of upper slot 15 extending circumferentially as extending through an arc) to continuously separate (see Figs 1-2, Pg 1, lines 59-63) the fastener sleeve (10) along a slit length (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Examiner notes 23mm major portion 13 as a slit length) from the distal end (see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (10) toward the proximal flange (11) with the slit length (see Fig 1) of from 25% to 75% (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Cooper indicates substantially 70%) of the sleeve length (see Fig 1), the slit length (see Fig 1) being confined (see Fig 1) to a distal portion (Fig 1, portion 13) of the fastener sleeve (10), [wherein a temporary radial flexure (Pg 2, lines 19-37, Examiner notes flexure as temporary radial flexure) of the fastener sleeve (10) occurs elastically (Pg 2, lines 19-37) along the slit length (see Fig 1) while the proximal portion (Fig 1, portion 12) of the fastener sleeve (10) remains substantially rigid (Pg 2, lines 19-37) under installation loads (Pg 2, lines 19-37), and further wherein the fastener sleeve (10) and received fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53) together are operable to permit (capable of permitting, i.e. this is a functional recitation) relative vertical movement between a frame structure without impinging on and loading a non-load bearing wall section].
Cooper fails to teach a curved interior contour of the bore that extends interiorly from below the proximal flange below the proximal end of the fastener sleeve to the distal end and an arc of at least 90 degrees.
However, Fischer teaches it is known to provide a curved interior contour (see Figs 3-4, Examiner notes an interior contour of channel 4 with groove 18 as a curved interior contour) of the bore (see Figs 3-4, channel 4 with groove 18) that extends (see Figs 3-4) interiorly (see Figs 3-4) from below (see Figs 3-4) the proximal flange (Fig 3, flange 15) below (see Figs 3-4) the proximal end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of anchor 1 adjacent flange 15 as the proximal end) of the fastener sleeve (Fig 3, anchor 1) to the distal end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of anchor 1 remote from flange 15 as the distal end) and an arc of at least 90 degrees (see Figs 3-4, Examiner notes an end radiused circumferential surface of upper slot 9 adjacent device 21 as an arc of at least 90 degrees).
Therefore, as evidenced by Fischer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped curved interior contour of the bore that extends interiorly from below the proximal flange below the proximal end of the fastener sleeve to the distal end and an arc of at least 90 degrees as taught by Fischer to Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate improving longitudinal guidance of the expansion screw (Fischer, Pg 10, lines 4-11).
Claim language set in brackets set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of a fastener sleeve, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the combination of the wall plug and the expansion anchor disclosed by Cooper and Fischer, respectively, is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that 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.
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Cooper teaches a fastener assembly (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 9-11, Examiner notes plugs for use in securing a screw in a bore in a wall or the like as a fastener assembly) comprising:
a fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates designed for use with screw sizes 4 to 12) having a threaded shaft (Pg 1, lines 73-90, Examiner notes threads of the screw as having a threaded shaft); and
a fastener sleeve (Fig 1, plug 10) with a sleeve length (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates 32mm long) from a proximal end (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Examiner notes an end of head portion 12 at flange 11 as a proximal end) to a distal end (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Examiner notes an end of major portion 13 remote from flange 11 as a distal end) having a proximal flange (Fig 1, flange 11) with a recessed proximal face (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a face of stage 16a as a recessed proximal face) and a distal facing surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of flange 11 facing legs 14 as a distal facing surface),
wherein the fastener sleeve (10) defines a bore (Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, aperture 16) for removably receiving (Pg 1, lines 50-53) the fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53) therethrough with a wall (see Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, Examiner notes a wall of aperture 16 as a wall) of the fastener sleeve (10) defining a curved interior contour (see Figs 2-3) of the bore (16) that extends (see Figs 2-3) from below (see Figs 2-3) the proximal flange (11) below (see Figs 2-3) the proximal end (see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (10), the curved interior contour (see Figs 2-3) having a smooth surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a surface of stage 16c as having a smooth surface), and a curved exterior contour (see Fig 1) wherein a sleeve diameter tapers (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Cooper indicates a very slight (½°) taper) along the sleeve length (see Fig 1) from the proximal end (see Fig 1) below (see Figs 1-2) the proximal flange (11) to the distal end (see Fig 1) and further wherein the fastener sleeve (10) has one or more distal slits (Fig 1, slots 15) separating (see Figs 1-2, Pg 1, lines 59-63) the fastener sleeve (10) wherein the one or more distal slits (15) define an interior slit boundary (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an interior boundary of upper slot 15 between upper legs 14 as define an interior slit boundary) comprising two generally planar side surfaces (see Fig 1, Examiner notes two adjacent faces of upper legs 14 separated by upper slot 15 as comprising two generally planar side surfaces) extending generally parallel (see Figs 1-2) to the longitudinal axis (see Fig 1) and a proximally convex, arcuate surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end circumferential surface of upper slot 15 adjacent fin 18 as a proximally convex, arcuate surface) at a proximal slit end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end of upper slot 15 adjacent fin 18 as at a proximal slit end) joining (see Fig 1) the two side surfaces (see Fig 1), the arcuate surface (see Fig 1) extending (see Fig 1) through an arc (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the end circumferential surface of upper slot 15 extending circumferentially as extending through an arc) to continuously separate (see Figs 1-2, Pg 1, lines 59-63) the fastener sleeve (10) along a slit length (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Examiner notes 23mm major portion 13 as a slit length) from a distal surface (see Figs 1 and 5, Examiner notes end surfaces of legs 14 remote from flange 11 as a distal surface) of the fastener sleeve (10) that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (see Figs 1 and 5, Examiner notes end surfaces of legs 14 remote from flange 11 as perpendicular to a longitudinal axis) of the fastener sleeve (10) toward the proximal flange (11) with the slit length (see Fig 1) of from 25% to 75% (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Cooper indicates substantially 70%) of the sleeve length (see Fig 1), the slit length (see Fig 1) being confined (see Fig 1) to a distal portion (Fig 1, portion 13) of the fastener sleeve (10), [wherein a temporary radial flexure (Pg 2, lines 19-37, Examiner notes flexure as temporary radial flexure) of the fastener sleeve (10) occurs elastically (Pg 2, lines 19-37) along the slit length (see Fig 1) while the proximal portion (Fig 1, potion 12) of the fastener sleeve (10) remains substantially rigid (Pg 2, lines 19-37) under installation loads (Pg 2, lines 19-37), and further wherein upon installation (Pg 2, lines 19-37) of the fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53) and fastener sleeve (10) into a non-load bearing surface relative movement between a wall section and a frame structure is permitted (capable of permitting, i.e. this is a functional recitation)].
Cooper fails to teach an unthreaded shank portion, a curved interior contour of the bore that extends from below the proximal flange below the proximal end of the fastener sleeve to the distal end, and an arc of at least 90 degrees.
However, Fischer teaches it is known to provide an unthreaded shank portion (see Fig 5, Examiner notes an unthreaded portion along a shank of screw 3 as an unthreaded shank portion), a curved interior contour (see Figs 3-4, Examiner notes an interior contour of channel 4 with groove 18 as a curved interior contour) of the bore (see Figs 3-4, channel 4 with groove 18) that extends (see Figs 3-4) from below (see Figs 3-4) the proximal flange (Fig 3, flange 15) below (see Figs 3-4) the proximal end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of anchor 1 adjacent flange 15 as the proximal end) of the fastener sleeve (Fig 3, anchor 1) to the distal end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of anchor 1 remote from flange 15 as the distal end), and an arc of at least 90 degrees (see Figs 3-4, Examiner notes an end radiused circumferential surface of upper slot 9 adjacent device 21 as an arc of at least 90 degrees).
Therefore, as evidenced by Fischer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped unthreaded shank portion, a curved interior contour of the bore that extends from below the proximal flange below the proximal end of the fastener sleeve to the distal end, and an arc of at least 90 degrees as taught by Fischer to Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a fastener based on application and use requirements, e.g. accommodating fastening of objects having varying materials, dimensions, etc., as well as facilitate improving longitudinal guidance of the expansion screw (Fischer, Pg 10, lines 4-11).
Regarding claims 54 and 74, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the [claim 54: fastener sleeve (10) of claim 9; claim 74: fastener assembly (see Fig 1) of claim 24] and further teaches wherein the fastener sleeve (10) has at least one of a tapered interior diameter (see Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, Cooper indicates aperture 16 tapers in three stages) and a tapered exterior diameter (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Cooper indicates a very slight (½°) taper).
Regarding claims 55 and 75, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the [claim 55: fastener sleeve (10) of claim 9; claim 75: fastener assembly (see Fig 1) of claim 24] and further teaches wherein the distal end (see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (10) is operable to flex radially outward (see Fig 1, Pg 2, lines 19-37, Cooper indicates free end of each leg to be displaced radially outwards).
Regarding claims 56 and 76, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the [claim 56: fastener sleeve (10) of claim 9; claim 76: fastener assembly (see Fig 1) of claim 24] and further teaches wherein the proximal flange (11) has a recess (Fig 2, stage 16a) on a proximal surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a surface of stage 16a as a proximal surface) operable to receive (capable of receiving, i.e. this is a functional recitation) a fastener head (Pg 1, lines 73-77, Examiner notes stage 16a is greater in overall diameter than the screws used as having a fastener head).
Claim(s) 53, 67-69, and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, in view of Fischer, Peters (US20080184854A1), hereinafter "Peters", and Young (US20060150787A1), hereinafter "Young".
Regarding claim 53, as best understood, Cooper teaches a kit (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 9-11, Examiner notes plugs for use in securing a screw in a bore in a wall or the like as a kit) comprising:
a fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates designed for use with screw sizes 4 to 12);
a fastener sleeve (Fig 1, plug 10) comprising
a proximal flange (Fig 1, flange 11) with a recessed proximal face (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a face of stage 16a as a recessed proximal face) and a distal facing surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a surface of stage 16c as a distal facing surface) that is free (see Fig 2) of fins, ribs, bosses, or other projections (see Fig 2),
a sleeve length (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates 32mm long) from a proximal end (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Examiner notes an end of head portion 12 at flange 11 as a proximal end) to a distal end (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Examiner notes an end of major portion 13 remote from flange 11 as a distal end) wherein the fastener sleeve (10) defines a bore (Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, aperture 16) for removably receiving (Pg 1, lines 50-53) the fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53) therethrough with a wall (see Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, Examiner notes a wall of aperture 16 as a wall) of the fastener sleeve (10) defining a curved interior (see Figs 2-3) of the bore (16) that extends interiorly (see Figs 2-3) from below (see Figs 2-3) the proximal flange (11) below (see Figs 2-3) the proximal end (see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (10), the curved interior contour (see Figs 2-3) having a smooth surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a surface of stage 16c as having a smooth surface), and a curved exterior contour (see Fig 1) wherein an exterior sleeve diameter tapers (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Cooper indicates a very slight (½°) taper) along the sleeve length (see Fig 1) from the proximal end (see Fig 1) below (see Figs 1-2) the proximal flange (11) to the distal end (see Fig 1) and further wherein the fastener sleeve (10) has one or more distal slits (Fig 1, slots 15) separating (see Figs 1-2, Pg 1, lines 59-63) the fastener sleeve (10) wherein the one or more distal slits (15) define an interior slit boundary (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an interior boundary of upper slot 15 between upper legs 14 as define an interior slit boundary) comprising two generally planar side surfaces (see Fig 1, Examiner notes two adjacent faces of upper legs 14 separated by upper slot 15 as comprising two generally planar side surfaces) extending generally parallel (see Figs 1-2) to the longitudinal axis (see Figs 1 and 5) and a proximally convex, arcuate surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end circumferential surface of upper slot 15 adjacent fin 18 as a proximally convex, arcuate surface) at a proximal slit end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end of upper slot 15 adjacent fin 18 as at a proximal slit end) joining (see Fig 1) the two side surfaces (see Fig 1), the arcuate surface (see Fig 1) extending through an arc (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the end circumferential surface of upper slot 15 extending circumferentially as extending through an arc) to continuously separate (see Figs 1-2, Pg 1, lines 59-63) the fastener sleeve (10) along a slit length (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Examiner notes 23mm major portion 13 as a slit length) from a flat distal end (see Figs 1 and 5, Examiner notes end surfaces of legs 14 remote from flange 11 as from a flat distal end) of the fastener sleeve (10) toward the proximal flange (11) with the slit length (see Fig 1) of from 25% to 75% (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 59-63, Cooper indicates substantially 70%) of the sleeve length (see Fig 1), the slit length (see Fig 1) being confined (see Fig 1) to a distal portion (Fig 1, portion 13) of the fastener sleeve (10), [wherein a temporary radial flexure (Pg 2, lines 19-37, Examiner notes flexure as temporary radial flexure) of the fastener sleeve (10) occurs elastically (Pg 2, lines 19-37) along the slit length (see Fig 1) while the proximal portion (Fig 1, portion 12) of the fastener sleeve (10) remains substantially rigid (Pg 2, lines 19-37) under installation loads (Pg 2, lines 19-37), and further wherein the fastener sleeve (10) and received fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53) together are operable to permit (capable of permitting, i.e. this is a functional recitation) movement between a frame structure without impinging on and loading a non-load bearing wall section].
Cooper fails to teach a curved interior of the bore that extends interiorly from below the proximal flange below the proximal end of the fastener sleeve to the distal end, an arc of at least 90 degrees, a bit having an e-clip, and an installation guide operable to securely receive the bit through a central aperture wherein the installation guide has a first configuration for an offset installation and a second configuration for a flush installation.
However, Fischer teaches it is known to provide a curved interior (see Figs 3-4, Examiner notes an interior contour of channel 4 with groove 18 as a curved interior) of the bore (see Figs 3-4, channel 4 with groove 18) that extends (see Figs 3-4) interiorly (see Figs 3-4) from below (see Figs 3-4) the proximal flange (Fig 3, flange 15) below (see Figs 3-4) the proximal end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of anchor 1 adjacent flange 15 as the proximal end) of the fastener sleeve (Fig 3, anchor 1) to the distal end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of anchor 1 remote from flange 15 as the distal end) and an arc of at least 90 degrees (see Figs 3-4, Examiner notes an end radiused circumferential surface of upper slot 9 adjacent device 21 as an arc of at least 90 degrees).
Therefore, as evidenced by Fischer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped curved interior of the bore that extends interiorly from below the proximal flange below the proximal end of the fastener sleeve to the distal end and an arc of at least 90 degrees as taught by Fischer to Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate improving longitudinal guidance of the expansion screw (Fischer, Pg 10, lines 4-11).
Cooper, in view of Fischer fails to teach a bit having an e-clip and an installation guide operable to securely receive the bit through a central aperture wherein the installation guide has a first configuration for an offset installation and a second configuration for a flush installation.
However, Peters teaches it is known to provide a bit (Fig 3, socket 22) having a clip (Fig 3, C-clip 76) and an installation guide (Fig 3, sleeve 62) operable to securely receive (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0019-0022, Examiner notes outer sleeve 62 extends over socket 22 and may be rotatably mounted on socket 22 as securely receive) the bit (22) through a central aperture (Fig 3, radially inner portion 68) wherein the installation guide (62) has a first configuration (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes the arrangement of sleeve 62 may be used to limit the insertion depth of a fastener based on the relation between radially outwardly extending portion 80, bit end 60, and a fastener head as a first configuration) for an offset installation (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes limit the insertion depth of a fastener head as an offset installation) and a second configuration (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes the arrangement of sleeve 62 may be used to limit the insertion depth of a fastener based on the relation between radially outwardly extending portion 80, bit end 60, and a fastener head as a second configuration) for a flush installation (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes limit the insertion depth of a fastener head as a flush installation).
Therefore, as evidenced by Peters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bit having a clip and an installation guide operable to securely receive the bit through a central aperture wherein the installation guide has a first configuration for an offset installation and a second configuration for a flush installation as taught by Peters to modified Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a tool to drive a fastener to a desirable depth.
Cooper, in view of Fischer and Peters fails to teach a bit having an e-clip.
However, Young teaches it is known to provide a bit (see Fig 6, Examiner notes reference character 10 as a bit) having an e-clip (see Fig 6, Examiner notes reference characters 17 and 18 as having an e-clip).
Therefore, as evidenced by Young, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clip of modified Cooper with an e-clip as taught by Young. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a clip with increased retention by providing a larger retaining area.
Regarding claim 67, as best understood, Cooper teaches a system (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 9-11, Examiner notes plugs for use in securing a screw in a bore in a wall or the like as a system) comprising:
a fastener (Pg 1, lines 50-53, Cooper indicates designed for use with screw sizes 4 to 12); and
a fastener sleeve (Fig 1, plug 10).
Cooper fails to teach a fastener sleeve according to claim 9; a bit having an e-clip; and an installation guide operable to securely receive the bit through a central aperture wherein the installation guide has a first configuration for an offset installation and a second configuration for a flush installation.
However, modified Cooper teaches it is known to provide a fastener sleeve according to claim 9 (see claim 9).
Therefore, as evidenced by modified Cooper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped fastener sleeve according to claim 9 as taught by modified Cooper to Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a fastener sleeve based on application and use requirements, e.g. providing a firm anchorage in use (Cooper, Pg 1, lines 12-17).
Cooper, in view of modified Cooper fails to teach a bit having an e-clip; and an installation guide operable to securely receive the bit through a central aperture wherein the installation guide has a first configuration for an offset installation and a second configuration for a flush installation.
However, Peters teaches it is known to provide a bit (Fig 3, socket 22) having a clip (Fig 3, C-clip 76); and an installation guide (Fig 3, sleeve 62) operable to securely receive (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0019-0022, Examiner notes outer sleeve 62 extends over socket 22 and may be rotatably mounted on socket 22 as securely receive) the bit (22) through a central aperture (Fig 3, radially inner portion 68) wherein the installation guide (62) has a first configuration (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes the arrangement of sleeve 62 may be used to limit the insertion depth of a fastener based on the relation between radially outwardly extending portion 80, bit end 60, and a fastener head as a first configuration) for an offset installation (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes limit the insertion depth of a fastener head as an offset installation) and a second configuration (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes the arrangement of sleeve 62 may be used to limit the insertion depth of a fastener based on the relation between radially outwardly extending portion 80, bit end 60, and a fastener head as a second configuration) for a flush installation (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0021, Examiner notes limit the insertion depth of a fastener head as a flush installation).
Therefore, as evidenced by Peters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bit having a clip and an installation guide operable to securely receive the bit through a central aperture wherein the installation guide has a first configuration for an offset installation and a second configuration for a flush installation as taught by Peters to modified Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a tool to drive a fastener to a desirable depth.
Cooper, in view of modified Cooper and Peters fails to teach a bit having an e-clip.
However, Young teaches it is known to provide a bit (see Fig 6, Examiner notes reference character 10 as a bit) having an e-clip (see Fig 6, Examiner notes reference characters 17 and 18 as having an e-clip).
Therefore, as evidenced by Young, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clip of modified Cooper with an e-clip as taught by Young. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a clip with increased retention by providing a larger retaining area.
Regarding claim 68, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the system (see Fig 1) of claim 67 and further teaches wherein the fastener sleeve (10) has at least one of a tapered interior diameter (see Fig 2, Pg 1, lines 64-72, Cooper indicates aperture 16 tapers in three stages) and a tapered exterior diameter (see Fig 1, Pg 1, lines 54-58, Cooper indicates a very slight (½°) taper).
Regarding claim 69, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the system (see Fig 1) of claim 67 and further teaches wherein the distal end (see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (10) is operable to flex radially outward (see Fig 1, Pg 2, lines 19-37, Cooper indicates free end of each leg to be displaced radially outwards).
Regarding claim 71, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the system (see Fig 1) of claim 67 and further teaches wherein the proximal flange (11) has a recess (Fig 2, stage 16a) on a proximal surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a surface of stage 16a as a proximal surface) operable to receive (capable of receiving, i.e. this is a functional recitation) a fastener head (Pg 1, lines 73-77, Examiner notes stage 16a is greater in overall diameter than the screws used as operable to receive a fastener head).
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stodola et al. (US8458972B1), hereinafter "Stodola", in view of Cooper and Fischer.
Regarding claim 57, as best understood, Stodola teaches an installation method (see Fig 4, Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) including steps of:
providing (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) a fastener assembly (Figs 1-3, fastener assembly 21, Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38);
extending (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) the fastener sleeve (Figs 1-3, sleeve 22) of the fastener assembly (21) through a hole (Fig 4, hole 46) in a target surface (Fig 4, header 43); and
driving (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) the threaded shaft (see Figs 1-3, Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38, Stodola indicates a threaded fastener) of the fastener (Figs 1-3, threaded fastener 27) into the target surface (43) while also setting a spacing gap (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38), whereby the fastener (27) is anchored (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) in the target surface (43), and the spacing gap (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) accommodates a deflection (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) of the target surface (43), and whereby the relative axial translation (see claims 6-7 and 16-17) of at least one of the fastener (27) and the sleeve (Figs 1-3, sleeve 22) within the hole (46) accommodates vertical deflection (see claims 6-7 and 16-17) without impinging on (see claims 6-7 and 16-17) and loading the wall section (see claims 6-7 and 16-17).
Stodola fails to teach a fastener assembly according to claim 24.
However, modified Cooper teaches a fastener assembly according to claim 24 (see claim 24).
Therefore, as evidenced by modified Cooper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped fastener assembly according to claim 24 as taught by modified Cooper to Stodola. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a fastener assembly based on application and use requirements, e.g. providing a firm anchorage in use (Cooper, Pg 1, lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 58, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches wherein the proximal flange (Cooper, 11) at the proximal end (Cooper, see Fig 1) of the fastener sleeve (Cooper, 10) is larger in diameter (see Fig 4, Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) than the hole (46) in the target surface (43).
Regarding claim 59, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches including the step of providing (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) an installation guide (Fig 4, driver bit 31) with a bit (Fig 4, driver 33) for engaging and rotating (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) the fastener head (Cooper, Pg 1, lines 50-53, Examiner notes designed for use with screw sizes 4 to 12 as the fastener head), wherein the installation guide (31) has an axially aligned receptacle (Fig 4, receptacle 32) configured to releasably retain (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) the fastener assembly (Cooper, see Fig 1) to provide a predetermined depth (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) to achieve at least one of a flush installation (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) of the fastener assembly (Cooper, see Fig 1) and an offset installation (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) of the fastener assembly (Cooper, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 60, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches wherein the fastener assembly (Cooper, see Fig 1) is installed through the hole (46) from below (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38), and the fastener (Cooper, Pg 1, lines 50-53) is threaded (Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) into a floor joist (Fig 4, joist 41) or a roof truss (Stodola, see claim 4).
Regarding claim 61, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches wherein the fastener (Cooper, Pg 1, lines 50-53) has a fastener length (see Figs 1-3, Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) greater (see Figs 1-3, Col 3, line 34 - Col 4, line 38) than the sleeve length (Cooper, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 62, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches wherein the fastener (Cooper, Pg 1, lines 50-53) can translate (Stodola, see claim 6) within the fastener sleeve (Cooper, 10) to accommodate a vertical deflection (Stodola, see claim 6).
Regarding claim 63, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches wherein the fastener sleeve (Cooper, 10) can translate (Stodola, see claim 7) within the hole (46) to accommodate deflection (Stodola, see claim 7) without loading a wall section (Stodola, see claim 7).
Regarding claim 64, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches including the step of providing (Col 6, line 57 - Col 7, line 41) a mounting clip (Fig 13, mounting clip 81) for a ceiling panel (Fig 13, ceiling panel 91) installed adjacent to a wall section (Col 6, line 57 - Col 7, line 41), wherein the mounting clip (81) is secured to an edge portion (Col 6, line 57 - Col 7, line 41) of the ceiling panel (91) and spaced about a perimeter (Col 6, line 57 - Col 7, line 41) of the ceiling panel (91).
Regarding claim 65, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 64 and further teaches including the step of securing (Col 6, line 57 - Col 7, line 41) the mounting clip (81) to a top header of the wall section (Col 6, line 57 - Col 7, line 41) wherein the mounting clip (81) is being free of attachment to a floor joist (Fig 13, joist 41) or a roof truss (Stodola, see claim 9).
Regarding claim 66, as best understood, modified Stodola teaches the installation method (see Fig 4) of claim 57 and further teaches including the step of forming the hole (46) through (see Fig 4) the target surface (43).
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, in view of Fischer, Peters, Young, and Mirsberger et al. (EP0187617B1), hereinafter "Mirsberger".
Regarding claim 72, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the system (see Fig 1) of claim 67 but fails to teach wherein the fastener sleeve further comprises a proximal sleeve body recess between a proximal end of one or more ribs positioned on the curved exterior surface of the fastener sleeve and a lower surface of the proximal flange.
Mirsberger teaches wherein the fastener sleeve (Fig 1b, dowel 1) further comprises a proximal sleeve body recess (Fig 1b, sleeve-shaped section 12) between a proximal end (see Fig 1b) of one or more ribs (Fig 1b, web-like support 10) positioned (see Fig 1b) on the curved exterior surface (see Figs 1b-2) of the fastener sleeve (1) and a lower surface (see Fig 1b) of the proximal flange (Fig 1b, head-like abutment 11).
Therefore, as evidenced by Mirsberger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped proximal sleeve body recess between a proximal end of one or more ribs positioned on the outer curved exterior surface of the fastener sleeve and a lower surface of the proximal flange as taught by Mirsberger to modified Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate attaching additional materials to the fastener sleeve.
Claim(s) 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, in view of Fischer, Peters, Young, and Murtha (US20070122253A1), hereinafter "Murtha".
Regarding claim 73, as best understood, modified Cooper teaches the system (see Fig 1) of claim 67 and further teaches wherein the installation guide (62) has a distal cavity (Peters, Fig 3, extending portion 80, Paragraphs 0021-0022) but fails to teach a plurality of external ribs on an outer curved surface of the installation guide.
Murtha teaches wherein the installation guide (Fig 23, grooved spacer 100) has a plurality of external ribs (Fig 23, grooves 102, Paragraphs 0102-0103) on an outer curved surface (see Figs 23-25) of the installation guide (100).
Therefore, as evidenced by Murtha, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized and shaped plurality of external ribs on an outer curved surface of the installation guide as taught by Murtha to modified Cooper. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide increased strength as well as aid in user gripping of the installation guide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9, 24, 53, 57, and 67 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights