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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the independent claims on page 7-14:
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the preceding office action does not teach the following limitations of the present claim 1:
Feature (C): "inner surfaces of both side walls of the accommodating groove of the protector include respective reinforcing ribs extending from a groove bottom portion toward a groove opening side,"
In this regard, applicant particularly argues that the claimed reinforcing rib of the prior art of Wei can not be considered as extending from a groove bottom portion and that the prior art of Wei cannot be considered to have a groove opening in the claimed direction.
Examiner notes that the preceding office action clearly demonstrates the claimed accommodating groove comprises accommodating space 54 55 and the space (not enumerated) in cover 5 between arms 59, such that the preceding office action examiner's annotation of Wei's fig 8 clearly demonstrates the claimed reinforcing rib having a dimension, or as otherwise known extending, from the bottom of claimed accommodating groove toward the opening of the claimed accommodating groove where the claimed cap is received. Examiner provides the following annotation of Wei's fig 1 for the purposes of clarifying the preceding rejection and illustratively demonstrating the claimed accommodating groove comprising accommodating space 54 55 and the space (not enumerated) in cover 5 between arms 59 such that it will be more readily apparent to applicant that the inner surfaces of both side walls of the accommodating groove of the protector include respective reinforcing ribs extending from a groove bottom portion toward a groove opening side.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
1111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that the claimed ribs of the prior art of Wei "does not function as a rib, let alone a rib as claimed", however applicant has offered no further remarks in this regard so it is unclear in what manner applicant considers the claimed ribs of Wei as not functioning as ribs, or even what a supposed inherent function of a rib should be construed as, nor is it clear how applicant consider the claimed ribs of Wei as not functioning in the claimed manner.
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term "rib" to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not inconsistent with the disclosure, may be best provided by Oxford's English dictionary: "a raised ridge on some object part or surface". Accordingly, the claimed ribs of Wei, side plates 52 and arms 59, can be considered ribs in the manner that they extend/are raised relative to the back plate 51 of the protective cover 5.
Feature (D): "the reinforcing ribs include respective through holes each opening on the inner surface and an outer surface of the corresponding side wall, and diametrically both sides of an outer peripheral portion of the cap enter and are locked in the respective through holes of the reinforcing ribs such that a tilt position of the protector in an unused state before removal of the cap is held,"
In this regard, applicant particularly argues that the claimed through holes of the prior art of Wei do not open on the inner surface and outer surface of a corresponding side wall, and that the prior art's cap does not enter/become locked in the prior art's through holes such that a tilt position of the protector is held prior to use.
Examiner notes that the preceding office action clearly demonstrates the claimed accommodating groove comprises accommodating space 54 55 and the space (not enumerated) in cover 5 between arms 59, such that the preceding office action examiner's annotation of Wei's fig 8 clearly demonstrates the through hole as opening through the inner/outer surfaces defining this accommodating groove such that the claimed cap, cover 68, is received in between these throughhole openings, therein entering, such that arms 59 engaging an outer surface of cover 68 to retain a relative position between these elements, therein locking the claimed cap.
Examiner provides the following annotation of Wei's fig 1 for the purposes of clarifying the preceding rejection and illustratively demonstrating the claimed through holes which the claimed cap is received between such that it will be more readily apparent to applicant that the reinforcing ribs include respective through holes each opening on the inner surface and an outer surface of the corresponding side wall.
PNG
media_image2.png
583
983
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Feature (E): "the respective reinforcing ribs provided on both side walls of the protector extend so as to be inclined in a length direction of the protector,"
In this regard, applicant particularly argues that the claimed reinforcing rib of the prior art of Wei is inclined in a radial direction and not a length direction. Examiner notes that applicant's arguments do not provide sufficient clarity to examiner how applicant considers the prior art to be inclined in a radial direction as opposed to a length direction.
For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner notes that Wei's bevel 591 is clearly illustrated throughout its disclosure, see particularly fig 3+10, as having a slope, therein inclined, in a length direction of cover 5, from shaft 57 to its panel 53.
Feature (G): "the diametrically both sides of the outer peripheral portion of the cap are disposed and positioned between the respective upper ribs and the respective lower ribs."
In this regard, applicant particularly argues that the claimed upper ribs and lower ribs of the prior art of Wei do not have the outer peripheral portion of the cap disposed an positioned therebetween.
Examiner notes that the preceding office action clearly demonstrates that the outer peripheral portion of the cap, the outer surface of the walls defining the opening 681 of Wei's cover 68, are positioned such that are disposed between disposed and span between the claimed ribs.
Examiner provides the following annotation of Wei's fig 1+5-7+10 for the purposes of clarifying the preceding rejection and illustratively demonstrating the outer peripheral portion of the cap can be positioned such that it is disposed between and spans the distance between the claimed ribs.
PNG
media_image3.png
618
1065
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the preceding office action does not teach the following limitations of the present claim 5:
Feature (d): "diametrically both sides of an outer peripheral portion of the cap, the cap being inserted in the accommodating groove, are positioned between the respective first positioning protrusions and the respective second positioning protrusions such that a tilt position of the protector in an unused state before removal of the cap is held in a state in which an expanding force is not exerted on the accommodating groove, the expanding force being caused by contact reaction force of the side walls of the accommodating groove of the protector with respect to the diametrically both sides of the outer peripheral portion of the cap inserted in the accommodating groove."
In this regard, applicant references preceding arguments pertaining to features D&G of claim 1 alleging that the prior art of Wei allegedly fails to disclose a structure in which a cap is positioned between respective first and second positioning protrusions on the inner surfaces of side walls.
Examiner notes that for the reasons detailed above discussing features D&G of claim 1, the feature (d) of claim 5 is indeed disclosed by the prior art of Wei.
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the preceding office action does not teach the following limitations of the present claim 9:
Feature (ii) & (iii): "the cap includes a contact protrusion configured to come into contact with the protector when the cap is pulled out, the protector being held at a tilt position approaching the cap before use, and as the cap is pulled out, the contact protrusion comes into contact with the protector and exerts a pulling out force so as to tilt the protector to a tilt position away from the cap."
In this regard, applicant particularly argues that Wei is silent with regard to these features in which the protector is tilted by pulling out the cap because Wei discloses an operation in its paragraph 52 which the protector is disengaged from the cap and then cap is removed.
However, as examiner detailed in the preceding office action and as examiner notes here that the claim feature relies on claim language of “configured to” implies a functional language and the prior art structure must at least be capable of performing the recited function of coming into contact with the claimed protector when the cap is pulled out so as to exert a pulling out force which can pivot the protector to a position away from the cap. The preceding office action detailed the manner by which the prior art structure of Wei is considered functionally capable of performing this function. The mere disclosure that there is another manner of operating the prior art invention, where the protector is tilted/pivoted prior to removing the cap, does not prohibit the functionality of the structure of Wei's invention enabling such a pull out force applied to its cover 68 resulting in the pivoting of cover 5.
Accordingly, examiner's rejection of the claims as presented in preceding office action stands, and is presented below for ease of reference.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims on page 14-16:
Applicant argues that their preceding arguments render the independent claims allowable, and consequently likewise the dependent claims are allowable.
However, as examiner has detailed above and presented in the preceding office action, the independent claims are not considered allowable subject matter and accordingly the proceeding dependent claims are at least objected or rejected as presented in the preceding office action.
Applicant particularly argues regarding dependent claim 6 that the claimed cylindrical shape of the outer peripheral portion of the cap has functional advantages associated with other claimed structures and thus amount to more than a mere recitation of relative dimensions and shape of the claimed device. Applicant sites paragraph 89 of the present published application.
Examiner notes that the claims, nor the cited reference, do not clearly, explicitly, or specifically attribute such purported functional advantages to the cylindrical shape. Further, the emphasized aspects of this disclosure, and applicants arguments, are not persuasive in this regard that the cylindrical shape of the protector is significant as such engagement and functions were already demonstrated as occurring in Wei with its original rectangularly shaped protector. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant particularly argues regarding dependent claim 10 that the preceding office action's reliance on making elements integral, relying upon MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), and the elastic hinge taught by Gyure, such that Gyure's living hinge 44 integrally connects Wei's cover 5 and buckle seat 10 pertains to a feature which is not claimed, and further alleges the combination of Wei and Gyure does not teach/disclose an elastic hinge where a puncture position of the protector, where the protector is positioned away from the puncture needle, is a stable position.
Examiner notes that in the rejection of claim 10 of the preceding office action, it was clearly established that cover 5 is stably held in position P1 during a needle injection operation, the mere routine substitution of a type of an integrally connecting elastic hinge does not destroy this disclosure of cover 5. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. referenced in paragraph 99-100 of Applicants specification where the protector may be separated from the needle hub, and particularly the hinge providing an urging force for tilting) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that the reference to MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) will not be removed from the action as it is pertinent to the manner by which Wei's hinge structure of a pivoting portion 15 rotating around a shaft 57, which permits likewise rotation of Wei's cover 5 relative to seat 10, is substituted with the living hinge 44 of Gyure which is integrally formed with Gyure's collar 41 and shield 45, permitting the rotation of shield 45 relative to collar 41.
Accordingly, examiner's rejection of the claims as presented in preceding office action stands, and is presented below for ease of reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-9,11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170258990 A1, henceforth written as Wei.
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses:
A protector-attached puncture needle comprising:
(invention of fig 1-10)
a puncture needle;
(needle body 62; fig 5)
a cap removably covering the puncture needle before use;
(needle cover 68; fig 5-7)
and a protector configured to cover the puncture needle after use,
(protective cover 5; fig 9-10)
wherein the protector is tiltably supported by a needle hub of the puncture needle,
(cover 5 tilts via pivoting portion 15 on the coupled buckle seat 10 20, therein the needle hub; fig 1-10)
and the protector includes an accommodating groove that opens toward the puncture needle in a tilting direction to accommodate the puncture needle,
(the claimed accommodating groove comprises accommodating space 54 55 and the space (not enumerated) in cover 5 between arms 59; fig 1-10)
inner surfaces of both side walls of the accommodating groove of the protector include respective reinforcing ribs extending from a groove bottom portion toward a groove opening side,
(see examiner's annotation of fig 8, denoting the reinforcing ribs defined by arms 59 and side plates 52; fig 1-10)
and the reinforcing ribs include respective through holes each opening on the inner surface and an outer surface of the corresponding side wall,
(see examiner's annotation of fig 8, denoting the space between arms 59 and plates 52 has the claimed through holes)
and diametrically both sides of an outer peripheral portion of the cap
(the claimed outer peripheral portion of the needle cover 68 is considered the outer periphery of the walls (not enumerated) defining opening 681; fig 5)
enter and are locked in the respective through holes of the reinforcing ribs such that a tilt position of the protector in an unused state before removal of the cap is held,
(fig 2+6+10 illustrate the lateral proportions of the walls defining opening 681 and the lateral proportion of the claimed reinforcing ribs defining the claimed throughhole such that fig 5-7 demonstrate that the claimed outer peripheral portion is received inside the through hole between plates 52 and arms 59; paragraph 51; arms 59 engage cover 68 to hold cover 5 in a tilted position before cover 68 is removed)
the respective reinforcing ribs provided on both side walls of the protector extend so as to be inclined in a length direction of the protector,
(fig 1-10 demonstrate that the claimed reinforcing ribs have a bevel face 591, such that a surface of arms 59 have an extending surface inclined in a length direction of cover 5)
each reinforcing rib is divided by the through hole into an upper rib disposed above the through hole and a lower rib disposed below the through hole, and
(see examiner's annotation of fig 8, denoting the side plates 52 as the claimed upper rib and arms 59 as the claimed lower rib)
the diametrically both sides of the outer peripheral portion of the cap are disposed and positioned between the respective upper ribs and the respective lower ribs.
(fig 7 illustrating the claimed position of walls of cover 68 defining opening 681 are disposed and positioned inbetween plates 52 and arms 59, noting fig 6+10 which demonstrate the lateral proportions of the aforementioned claim elements)
PNG
media_image4.png
555
478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotation of Wei’s figure 8
Regarding claim 5, Wei discloses:
A protector-attached puncture needle comprising:
(invention of fig 1-10)
a puncture needle;
(needle body 62; fig 5)
a cap removably covering the puncture needle before use;
(needle cover 68; fig 5-7)
and a protector configured to cover the puncture needle after use,
(protective cover 5; fig 9-10)
wherein the protector is tiltably supported by a needle hub of the puncture needle,
(cover 5 tilts via pivoting portion 15 on the coupled buckle seat 10 20, therein the needle hub; fig 1-10)
and the protector includes an accommodating groove that opens toward the puncture needle in a tilting direction to accommodate the puncture needle,
(the claimed accommodating groove comprises accommodating space 54 55 and the space (not enumerated) in cover 5 between arms 59; fig 1-10)
inner surfaces of both side walls of the accommodating groove of the protector include respective first positioning protrusions and respective second positioning protrusions that are separated from each other in the tilting direction of the protector,
(arms 69 are considered the first position protrusions and the lower end (not enumerated) of walls 52 are considered the second positioning protrusions, which fig 1-10 has been separated in a tilting direction of cover 5)
and diametrically both sides of an outer peripheral portion of the cap,
(the claimed outer peripheral portion of the needle cover 68 is considered the outer periphery of the walls (not enumerated) defining opening 681; fig 5)
the cap being inserted in the accommodating groove, are positioned between the respective first positioning protrusions and the respective second positioning protrusions such that a tilt position of the protector in an unused state before removal of the cap is held in a state
(fig 2+6+10 illustrate the lateral proportions of the walls defining opening 681 and the lateral proportion of the claimed reinforcing ribs defining the claimed throughhole such that fig 5-7 demonstrate that the claimed outer peripheral portion is received inside the through hole between plates 52 and arms 59; paragraph 51; arms 59 engage cover 68 to hold cover 5 in a tilted position before cover 68 is removed)
in which an expanding force is not exerted on the accommodating groove, the expanding force being caused by contact reaction force of the side walls of the accommodating groove of the protector with respect to the diametrically both sides of the outer peripheral portion of the cap inserted in the accommodating groove.
(paragraph 51; friction force between arms 59 and cover 68 retain cover 5 in a tilted position, therein not an expanding force exerted on the claimed accommodating groove; fig 7)
Regarding claim 8, Wei discloses:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim1, further comprising a positioning mechanism positioning the tilt position of the protector separately at a puncture position away from the puncture needle and at a protection position where the puncture needle is covered.
(paragraph 44; the claimed positioning mechanism controlling the positioning of cover 5 is pivoting portion 15 engaging round shaft 57; fig 7-10)
Regarding claim 9, Wei discloses:
A protector-attached puncture needle comprising:
(invention of fig 1-10)
a puncture needle;
(needle body 62; fig 5)
a cap covering the puncture needle before use and capable of being pulled out;
(needle cover 68; fig 5-7)
and a protector being tiltable and configured to cover the puncture needle from a lateral side after use,
(protective cover 5; fig 1-10)
wherein the cap includes a contact protrusion configured to come into contact with the protector when the cap is pulled out,
(the claimed contact protrusion of the needle cover 68 is considered the outer surface (not enumerated) of the walls defining opening 681; fig 5-6 illustrates the manner by which the surface of the walls defining opening 681 can be considered to protrude from a more narrow top portion of cover 68)
the protector being held at a tilt position approaching the cap before use,
(see fig 7 demonstrating the tilt position P2 of cover 5)
and as the cap is pulled out, the contact protrusion comes into contact with the protector and exerts a pulling out force so as to tilt the protector to a tilt position away from the cap.
claim language of “as the cap is pulled out” implies a functional language and the prior art must at least be capable of performing the recited function of the contact protrusion contacting the protector such that a pulling out force may be exerted which would tilt the protector away from the cap.
(paragraph 51; cover 68 and cover 5 are secured together by the frictional engagement of arms 59 and the outer surface (not enumerated) of the walls defining opening 681, such that if a user were to apply an axial force parallel with needle body 62 to remove cover 68, the resultant moment arm acting on arm 59 on cover 5 by the outer surface (not enumerated) would result in a pivoting movement of cover 5 about its shaft 57 in pivoting portion 15; fig 7)
Regarding claim 11, Wei discloses:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim 9, wherein the contact protrusion of the cap is constituted by a flange-shaped portion projecting on an outer peripheral surface on a proximal end side of the cap.
Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term " flange" to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not inconsistent with the disclosure, may be best provided by Cambridge's English dictionary: "a flat surface sticking out from an object, used to fix it to something or to make it stronger".
(fig 5-6 demonstrate the flat and protruding nature of the walls defining opening 681, such that those walls may be considered a flange of cover 68)
Regarding claim 12, Wei discloses:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim9, wherein the protector includes an accommodating groove configured to accommodate and cover the puncture needle from the lateral side after use,
(the claimed accommodating groove comprises accommodating space 54 55 and the space (not enumerated) in cover 5 between arms 59; fig 1-10)
and an engaging protrusion projects on at least one of inner surfaces of side walls of the accommodating groove, the engaging protrusion being configured to be contacted by the contact protrusion due to pulling out of the cap.
(paragraph 51; arms 59 of cover 5 engage the claimed contact protrusion frictionally; fig 7-10)
Regarding claim 14, Wei discloses:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim 1, wherein a lower edge of the upper rib, which is an upper edge of the through hole,
(see examiner's annotation of fig 8, above, denoting the claimed upper rib and through hole which make it clear that the lower edge of the former is the same as the upper edge of the latter)
constitutes an end face extending in an intersecting direction that intersects with an inclination direction of the reinforcing rib,
(fig 1-2 illustrates an end face on an lower edge of lower side wall 52s has a dimension intersecting an inclined direction of the claimed reinforcing rib)
and an upper edge of the lower rib, which is a lower edge of the through hole,
(see examiner's annotation of fig 8, above, denoting the claimed lower rib and through hole which make it clear that the upper edge of the former is the same as the lower edge of the latter)
includes an end face extending in the intersecting direction.
(fig 1-2 illustrates an end face on an upper edge of arms 59 which has a dimension intersecting an inclined direction of the claimed reinforcing rib)
Regarding claim 15, Wei discloses:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim 14, wherein an inclined portion that inclines to a side of the upper edge of the through hole is provided on a proximal end side of the upper edge of the lower rib
(fig 1-3, demonstrating the inclination and positional arrangement of extensions arms 58 and the inner portion of surface 511 originating from the upper edge of arm 59 to a side of the upper edge of the claimed through hole)
Regarding claim 16, Wei discloses:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim 9, wherein the protector has a contact target part configured to be contacted by the contact protrusion due to pulling out of the cap, and the contact target part has a shape by which an operating force in a pulling out direction of the cap is converted into an external force in a tilting direction separating the protector from the cap.
( the contacting surface (not enumerated) of arms 59 which mates with the outer surface (not enumerated) of the walls defining opening 681, is considered the claimed contact target part of cover 5; paragraph 51, as arms 59 mates to cover 68 via friction, it's surface has a shape such that if a user were to apply an axial force parallel with needle body 62 to remove cover 68, the resultant moment arm acting on arm 59 on cover 5 by the outer surface (not enumerated) would result in a pivoting movement of cover 5 about its shaft 57 in pivoting portion 15; fig 7)
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Wei discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above. However, Wei is silent regarding:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim1, wherein the outer peripheral portion of the cap inserted in the accommodating groove of the protector has a cylindrical shape.
However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) provides that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions/shape of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Notably, Wei in paragraph 54 provides that the shape of invention may be adapted to accommodate the cross-sectional shape of the needle seat of syringes.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the invention to a suit a cylindrically shaped needle seated syringe as opposed to the disclosed rectangular shape, therein necessitating a cylindrically shaped needle cover to mate therewith and consequently arriving at the claimed invention, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention suitable for protecting the needle of different types of conventional syringes, see paragraph 54 of Wei and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 5665075 A, henceforth written as Gyure.
Regarding Claim 10,
Wei discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The protector-attached puncture needle according to claim 9, wherein the protector is connected to a needle hub of the puncture needle by [a hinge] by which a puncture position away from the puncture needle is set as a stable position.
(paragraph 48-49+51-52; cover 5 pivots relative to the claimed needle hub via the coupling of pivoting portion 15 and round shaft 57, such that cover 5 is retained in position P1, therein held stably, during a needle injection operation and in a pre-use state before an operator has moved cover 5 into position P2 or P3)
However, Wei is silent regarding:
protector is connected to a needle hub of the puncture needle by an elastic hinge
However, Gyure teaches protector-attached puncture needle wherein:
protector is connected to a needle hub of the puncture needle by an elastic hinge
(col 7 line 8-27; when living hinge 44, therein an elastic hinge, reaches the open position its aperture 83 with an edge 85 engages projection 82, stably maintaining the angle of cover 37; fig 4+7)
Notably MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) provides that making elements integral are a matter of obvious engineering choice where the integral condition is desirable.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the pivoting portion and rotating shaft disclosed by Wei with the living hinge taught by Gyure, therein integrally forming Wei’s cover 5 with its buckle seat 10, in order to arrive at an equivalent means of pivoting a protective cover relative to a needle seat and advantageously arrive at an invention with an improved manufacturing assembling process by reducing the number of distinct elements which must be mated together, see col 7 line 8-27 of Gyure and MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 FORREST DIPERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm eastern.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/FORREST B DIPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783