DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed November 24, 2025, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending with claims 16-20 cancelled, claims 21-25 newly added, and claims 1, 2 and 5-15 amended. Applicant’s amendments to claim 13 has obviated the previously-filed rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Additionally, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the previously-filed rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is a complete response to the November 24, 2025 communication.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species C directed to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on May 14th, 2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that newly proffered claims 21-25 are directed to the elected Group/Species and will be examined in the instant action.
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 single deflection wedge comprising first and second angled faces that intersect along a ridge line oriented generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the sleeve, the faces being configured to guide two respective deployment members along trajectories that diverge about the longitudinal axis, and wherein at least one guide channel is configured to accommodate two deployment members for exit across the first and second angled faces as set forth in claim 25 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 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 1-15 and 21-25 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 1, the claim presently recites the limitation of “a flexible deployment member adapted to be advanced through soft tissue without buckling and within a trajectory determined by the angled face of the deflection wedge” therein.
The Examiner has reviewed the instant disclosure but has failed to find any recitation therein that describes the flexible deployment member to be specifically adapted or otherwise provide such that the flexible deployment member can be “advanced through soft tissue without buckling”. First, the Examiner has failed to find verbatim support for either of the claim terms of “buckle” or “soft tissue”. The Examiner recognizes that in haec verba support for the claim term(s) is not specifically required, these added claim limitations “must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction.” In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2163(I)(B).
To this end, the Examiner has failed to find any characterization in the instant disclosure with respect to any manner of tissue being “soft” tissue as required in the claim so as to inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the type of tissue or level of resistance to be experienced by the deployment member when being introduced into the “soft” tissue. Further, the instant disclosure is silent with respect to the material of construction, thickness, diameter and/or other constructional details with respect to the deployment member(s). At most, [0033] of the filed Specification sets forth that “assembly 114 may include a wire or wires encased in a stiff outer covering, which may be plastic, metal, or another material” and continue that such “may provide added rigidity to deployable assembly 114 for guiding the trajectory of sensors 112 into a target tissue.”
This doesn’t, in the Examiner’s interpretation, rise to the level to support that the flexible deployment member is specifically adapted to be “advanced through soft tissue without buckling” as required in claim 1. The Examiner is of the position that such does not inform one of ordinary skill of the art as to the level of stiffness achieved by the wire/wires of the flexible deployment member themselves, or in combination with the “stiff outer covering” in [0033], and if such would rise to the level of being capable of being advance through some manner of tissue without buckling. This issue is exacerbated by each flexible deployment member still needing to be sufficiently flexible so as to flex when advanced against the deflection wedge.
Accordingly, it is for at least the reasoning set forth above that the Examiner finds that claim 1 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. Claims 2-15 and 21-25 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 25, the claim currently recites the following requirements:
“the deflection wedge comprises first and second angled faces that intersect along a ridge line oriented generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the sleeve, the faces being configured to guide two respective deployment members along trajectories that diverge about the longitudinal axis of the sleeve, and wherein at least one guide channel is configured to accommodate two deployment members for exit across the first and second angled faces”
The Examiner has reviewed in the instant disclosure but has failed to find support for a single deflection wedge that includes a plurality of angled faces (first and second angled faces) wherein the faces are configured to guide to respective deployment members along trajectories that diverge about the longitudinal axis of the sleeve. First, with respect to the elected embodiment of Species C shown in figures 12-20, the Examiner notes that the disclosure in [0052] of the filed Specification sets forth “at least one surface mounted deflection wedge 516 for guiding the position of each deployment assembly 514 … [i]n some embodiments, two or more surface mounted deflection wedges 516 may be provided”. Looking to figures 12-20, the Examiner has failed to find depiction of a single wedge 516 that would include the claimed plurality of angled faces that would cause the respective deployment members to deploy along trajectories that diverge about the longitudinal axis. At most, the Examiner finds that the embodiment in figures 12-20 with the wedge 516 would require individual wedges for each respective deployment member such as shown in figure 13 where each 514 interacts with an individual wedge 516 to define trajectories for each 514 that would diverge about the longitudinal axis of the sleeve.
The Examiner has reviewed the remainder of the disclosure including that with respect to the non-elected species but has failed to find any other disclosure that supports for a single deflection wedge (taken as any of 216/316/416) defining a plurality of angled faces that would provide the claimed guiding of the respective deployment members with respect to the longitudinal axis of the sleeve.
As such, it is for at least the reasoning set forth above that claim 25 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. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough et al (US Pat. No. 5,672,174) further in view of Hammack et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0014094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gough provides for a deployable assembly sleeve (See figures 7 and 8, 18) comprising longitudinal body including a lumen sized to receive an ablation probe (insulation sleeve 18 with a lumen therethrough for the passage of the primary antenna 14; primary antenna 14 is being interpreted as an ablation probe), the longitudinal body having a proximal end and a distal end (see figures 7 and 8), at least one guide channel extending from the proximal end toward the distal end (a respective channel in 18 having a respective 16 therein forms a guide channel extend from the proximal end toward the distal end),
at least one deployable assembly disposed on the longitudinal body (one of the secondary antennas 16 passed through the sleeve 18 and the respective lumen through the sleeve), the deployable assembly including,
a flexible deployment member (the secondary antenna 16) adapted to be advanced through soft tissue without buckling and with a trajectory determined by the angled face of the deflection wedge (see at least col. 4; 33-44 providing for the structural rigidity of 16 including when such are only introduced a small amount into a desired tissue), and
at least one sensor affixed to a distal end of the deployment member (a sensor 23 on a distal end of the secondary antenna 16), and
a handle including a control mechanism for controlling deployment of the deployable assembly in a distal direction and retraction in a proximal direction (see col. 6; 2-4 providing for the handle to control the extension of the secondary antennas 16),
wherein the guide channel guides the deployable assembly distally and radially outward as it is deployed (see figures 7 and 8 with the secondary antennas 16 extending both distally and radially as they are deployed).
While the deployable assembly extends radially away from the longitudinal body when deployed in Gough as noted above, Gough fails to provide for at least one deflection wedge at the distal end having an angled face wherein the deflection wedge guide the deployable assembly distally and radially outward as it is deployed.
Hammack provides for a similar channel as that of Gough for the passage of a deployment member therethrough. Hammack further provides for a deflection wedge that includes an angled face at its distal end relative to the longitudinal body, and wherein the angled face functions to guide the deployable assembly distally and radially outward as it is deployed (31).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the channel opening and deflection wedge arrangement as in Hammack to the channel of Gough to provide for an alternative manner of directing the deployment member radially away from the longitudinal body upon deployment. Hammack readily contemplates a number of arrangements for achieving the manner and direction of deployment in Gough (see figure 3B being similar to figures 7-8 of Gough) with each working equally as well as one another and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide for the needed deployment of the probe radially away from the longitudinal body.
Regarding claim 2, Gough provides that the ablation probe is disposed within the lumen (primary antenna 14 disposed within the lumen formed in 18).
Regarding claim 3, Gough provides that a thermal ablation energy source is supplied to the ablation probe and wherein the thermal ablation energy source is one of a radio frequency (RF) energy, high intensity focused ultrasound (HiFU), thermoelectric resistive heat, helium gas, or a laser (See col. 6; 14-19).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combined arrangement provides that the at least one guide channel comprises an external guide channel disposed on a radially outer surface of the longitudinal body and extending from the proximal end to the distal end thereof (via Gough providing that each respective channel in 18 having the respective 16 therein is disposed on a radially outer surface when compared, for example, to the inner surface of the channel through which 14 passes), wherein the external guide channel forms a conduit configured to accommodate the deployable assembly (16 passes through the channel defined above).
The combination with Hammack additionally provides that the deflection wedge is located on the radially outer surface of the distal end of the longitudinal body, and wherein the angled face is angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal body, so as to extend distally and radially outwardly.
Regarding claim 6, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combined arrangement provides the at least one guide channel comprises an internal guide channel disposed on a radially inner surface of the lumen of the longitudinal body and extending from the proximal end to the distal end (via Gough providing that the respective channel in 18 having the respective 16 therein is disposed on a radially inner surface when compared, for example, to the outer surface of 16), wherein the internal guide channel forms a conduit configured to accommodate the deployable assembly (16 passes through the channel defined above).
The combination with Hammack further provides that the deflection wedge is located on the radially inner surface of the lumen and the angled face of the deflection wedge is angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal body so as to extend distally and radially outwardly.
Regarding claim 7, Gough provides that each sensos senses a parameter selected from the group consisting of: temperature, pressure, electrical impedance, electrical conduction, blood perfusion, thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, and sound propagation velocity (24 as in col. 5 can be a temperature sensor and impedance sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Gough provides that the handle is disposed at the proximal end of the longitudinal body, wherein the handle includes the control mechanism (see col. 6; 2-4 providing for the handle to control the extension of the secondary antennas 16).
Regarding claim 9, Gough provides that the deployable assembly sleeve comprises two deployable assemblies (there are multiple secondary antenna 16 passing through 18 as in figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combined arrangement provides the distal end of the longitudinal body extends distally beyond the deflection wedge and terminates at a distal tip. Specifically, the Examiner is of the position that in providing the deflection wedge and opening as per the teaching of Hammack in the rejection of claim 1 above, that the longitudinal body would extend distally beyond the deflection wedge and would terminate at a distal tip (at the point where 18 stops).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combination would provide for an angle between the angled face and a longitudinal axis of the longitudinal body between about 0° and 90°.
Regarding claim 21, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, Gough provides that the lumen is open at the distal end, defining a distal aperture (insulation sleeve 18 with the lumen defines and opening at its distal end for the passage of 14 therethrough), and
in use, an ablation zone of the ablation probe extends distally beyond the distal end of the longitudinal body (with the longitudinal body defined as 18, an ablation zone is capable of being defined along the probe 14 distal to the distal end of 18),
and the deflection wedge is disposed proximally relative to the distal end of the longitudinal body (see the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above providing for the deflection wedge per the teaching of Hammack to be proximal to the distal-most end of 18).
Regarding claim 22, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, the longitudinal body comprises a plurality of guide channels that are circumferentially spaced about a longitudinal axis of the sleeve (via Gough providing for a plurality of guide channels via the multiple ones of the channels formed in 18 having a respective 16 therein).
Regarding claim 23, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 13 above, Gough provides with respect to figures 7 and 8 that the members 16 extending from 18 extend at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis. The combination with Hammack in the rejection of claim 1 further provides for the angled fac to determine an angle of trajectory. Further, while Gough provides that 16 “can have a variety of different geometric configurations” per the disclosure in col. 8; 21-23, Gough fails to explicitly recite that the deployment member is adapted to maintain a straight-line trajectory determined by the angle of the angled face during entry through tissue. However, the proximal antennas 16 in figures 7/8 of Gough taken as the one or more deployment members appear to be substantially straight in angled trajectory. Thus, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a straight trajectory for each of the one or more deployment members 16 based on the angle of the angled face in the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above. Such would fall within the “different geometric configurations” set forth in col. 8; 21-23 of Gough and would represent one of a known number of geometric configurations for the members 16 to provide for the disclosed for tissue anchoring as set forth in col. 8 of Gough.
Claims 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough et al (US Pat. No. 5,672,174) in view of Hammack et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0014094 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 respectively above, and further in view of Hillely et al. (US Pat. No. 8,348,855).
Regarding claim 4, while Gough contemplates the inclusion of a thermal ablation energy source is supplied to the ablation probe (See col. 6; 14-19) and further contemplates the use of a cooling fluid (see col. 6; 4-7, claim 28, 30-32), Gough fails to specifically contemplate that the thermal ablation energy source is a cryosource, and that the cryosource is one of nitrogen, nitrous oxide, hydrogen, argon, propane, an alcohol, or carbon dioxide in one of a gas, liquid, mixed phase, critical, or supercritical state. Hammack fails to cure this deficiency. Hillely contemplates a probe similar to that of the primary antenna of Gough and specifically provides for the use of a cryosource in the form of a cooling gas as argon, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide (see col. 7; 54-67). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a cooling fluid as in Hillely and the associated structure to control and cool the distal end of the probe to the probe of Gough to provide an exemplary manner of cooling the distal end of the primary antenna. Gough already contemplates the use of a closed circuit cooling system with Hillely establishing that such are known in the art, and for use in conjunction with probes with multiple temperature sensors thereon.
Regarding claim 10, Gough, while providing for a number of sensors on a deployment member (see col. 5; 9-19 with the placement of sensors 24), fails to provide that the at least one sensor on a single deployment member specifically comprises at least two sensors on a single deployable assembly. Hillely discloses a similar device for sensing temperature, where the device includes a series of three to ten temperature sensors (see col. 8; 54-64). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to have utilized at least two temperature sensors on the deployment member of Gough in view of the teaching of Hillely to provide for a deployable sensor array as set forth in claim 10. Hillely clearly provides that axially-spaced sensors along a probe readily provides feedback regarding temperature values along the length of the probe (See col. 8; 54-64) while allowing the user to determine the extent of treatment by the probe.
Regarding claim 11, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 10 above, Gough provides for a size of exposed antenna 14 to be 2cm (see col. 5; 66-67) but fails to specifically provide for the multiple sensors as previously noted in the rejection of claim 10. Hillely further provides for the selection of axially spaced temperature sensors along a device with a specific inter-sensor spacing selected based on a desired resolution of sensing (see col. 15; 6-12).
As such, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to have utilized the cumulative span of about 1.5 cm to about 2.0 cm between the two sensors in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 as set forth in claim 11 in view of the general sizing of the distal end of Gough and further in view of the teaching of Hillely. Hillely clearly provides that axially-spaced sensors along a probe readily provides feedback of a gradient sample of the temperature over a span with temperature values along the length of the probe (See col. 8; 54-64). The Examiner further believes that it would have been an obvious consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an inter-sensor spacing of about 1.5 cm to about 2 cm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Hillely specifically provides that selecting the inter-electrode spacing is a matter of routine skill to one in the art in order to achieve a desired amount of resolution of sensing along the probe with one of ordinary skill in the art readily capable of selecting the claimed values to provide for a desired level of sensing along the deployable probe of Gough
Claims 14, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough et al (US Pat. No. 5,672,174) in view of Hammack et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0014094 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Loeb (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0144630 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Gough fails to provide for a friction gasket is contained within the handle and being configured to compressibly grip the ablation probe received through the lumen to selectively retain the ablation probe at a selected axial position (per claim 14), and wherein the friction gasket includes a control mechanism for adjusting the grip on the ablation probe (per claim 15).
Loeb discloses an exemplary manner of providing a handle 14 of a device that includes a longitudinally movable deployment shaft (fiber 13). Loeb further provides for the inclusion of friction gasket is contained within the handle (19 as in figures 10 and 11), wherein the friction gasket is configured to compressibly grip a probe received through the lumen to selectively retain the probe at a selected axial position (see [0061]), and wherein the friction gasket includes a control mechanism for adjusting the grip to the proximal end of the probe (See [0061] and [0062]). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a friction gasket and associated control mechanism as in Loeb to the handle of Gough to provide for an exemplary manner of adjusting the extension of the deployment member. Loeb readily provides that such an arrangement allows for the fixing of a deployment member in a set position while also providing for a sealed fit between the shaft and the friction gasket.
Regarding claim 24, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 15 above, the combination with Loeb further provides for the friction gasket comprises:
an elastomeric O-ring or an elastomeric membrane having a central aperture adapted to provide a fluid-tight seal around a shaft of the ablation probe (see figures 10 and 11 with the o-ring at 19, see [0034] disclosing 19 provides for a fluid-tight seal), and
an adjustment mechanism comprising a threaded cap, a cam collar, or a collet adapted to axially compress the friction gasket to radially constrict around the probe (See figures 10 and 11 with 40 configured to compress 19), such that the friction gasket is adapted to accommodate a plurality of outer diameters of the ablation probe (such can provide for adjustment for varying probes with a variation in outer diameter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13 of the Remarks filed November 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gough have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the prior applied Gough reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) fails to provide each and every limitation set forth in independent claim 1 including the claimed at least one deflection wedge at the distal end having an angled face. Therefore, the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gough has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the following new grounds of rejection have been set forth in the action above:
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough et al (US Pat. No. 5,672,174) further in view of Hammack et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0014094 A1).
Claims 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough et al (US Pat. No. 5,672,174) in view of Hammack et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0014094 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 respectively above, and further in view of Hillely et al. (US Pat. No. 8,348,855).
Claims 14, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough et al (US Pat. No. 5,672,174) in view of Hammack et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0014094 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Loeb (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0144630 A1).
With respect to the newly proffered grounds of rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Gough in view of Hammack, the Examiner notes that Applicant has generally alleged that “Gough and Hammack do not teach or suggest each and every feature of the claimed invention” and that “Hammack neither cures nor is alleged to cure the deficiencies in Gough discussed above with respect to claim 1”. The Examiner must respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to the above proffered rejection of independent claim 1 in the Action above. The Examiner is of the position that the above rejection of claim 1, contrary to Applicant’s allegations, readily addresses each and every limitation set forth in independent claim 1.
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 RONALD HUPCZEY, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/Ronald Hupczey, Jr./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794