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
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, 8, 21 and 28.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
• “Lifting element” as recited in claim 4 and 8 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., there is no language defining the structure of the lifting element).
• “Inertial driving element” as recited in claims 4, 6 and 8 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the generic placeholder is only described by the function it performs with no structure).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Collins et al. (US 4,835,867 A) .
Regarding claim 1, Foster teaches a subassembly (Foster, Figs. 8-11) for a trimmer head (Foster, Fig. 1, 20) of a power tool (Foster, Fig. 1, 22), the subassembly comprising:
a flywheel (Foster, Fig. 8, 128); and
a cartridge (Foster, Fig. 8, 64’) including a segment of trimmer line (Foster, Fig. 8, 38’), wherein the cartridge is keyed to the flywheel (Foster, Fig. 9, 140, 142, 144 and 82’), wherein the subassembly is configured to be operatively coupled to a motor (Foster, Fig. 8, 28’) of the power tool, and wherein the subassembly is positioned in a housing (Foster, Fig. 2, 26) of the power tool and wherein the cartridge is configured to move relative to the housing to release a portion of the segment of trimmer line (Foster, Fig. 8, 42’ and 40’, Col. 8, lines 44-47) in response to the motor stopping (Foster, Col. 8, lines 59-68).
Foster does not teach wherein the cartridge is removably keyed to the flywheel and the subassembly is removably positionable in the housing.
Collins teaches a subassembly (Collins, Fig. 2, 6-8, and 14-17, 35, 36, and 65) featuring a cartridge (Collins, Fig. 2, 6-8, and 14-17, 65) including a segment of trimmer line (Collins, Fig. 7, 31), wherein the cartridge is removably keyed to the flywheel (Collins, Fig. 7, 35, 40, and 65, Col. 7, lines 40-44) and wherein the subassembly is removably positionable (Collins, Col. 8, lines 9-16) in a housing (Collins, Fig. 7, 35 and 36) of the power tool. Such an arrangement allows for the spool to be quickly and conveniently replaced as evidenced by Mattson (Mattson, Col. 1 line 55 – Col. 2 line 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the cartridge and subassembly to be removable as taught by Collins as such a modification would allow for the quick replacement of the cartridge as is evidenced by Mattson.
Regarding claim 32, Foster in view of Collins teaches the trimmer head of claim 1, wherein the cartridge (Foster, Fig. 8, 64’) comprises a central hub (Foster, Fig. 8, 118) and a plurality of flanges (Foster, Fig. 8, 122 and 124) extending radially outward from the central hub, and wherein the segment of trimmer line is configured to wrap around the central hub between the plurality of flanges (Foster, Fig. 8, 38’).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Collins (US 4,835,867 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cayou (4,236,309 A).
Regarding claim 3, Foster in view of Collins teaches the trimmer head of claim 1, wherein the first and second rotational directions (Collins, Fig. 14-16A, 98 and 100) are opposite one another.
Foster in view of Collins as modified does not teach wherein the flywheel comprises a drive assembly including one or more rotational drivers configured to transmit torque in a first rotational direction from the motor to the flywheel, a stop assembly including one or more rotational stops configured to selectively interface with one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head to transmit torque in a second rotational direction from the flywheel to one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head and wherein, and wherein the first and second rotational directions are opposite one another
Cayou teaches a trimmer head (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 11) wherein the flywheel (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 75) comprises a drive assembly (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 67, 71, and 77) including one or more rotational drivers (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 77) configured to transmit torque in a first rotational direction from the motor to the flywheel (Cayou, Col. 3, lines 62-66), and a stop assembly (Cayou, fig. 1-3, 69, 73, 79) including one or more rotational stops (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 79) configured to selectively interface with one or more complementary stop (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 73) of the trimmer head to transmit torque in a second rotational direction from the flywheel to the one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head (Cayou, Col. 4, lines 12-13), when engaged the complementary stop of Cayou imparts some torque against the rotational stops of Cayou against a rotation in a first direction to stop the spool thus the structures of Cayou are capable of transmitting torque in a second rotational direction. Such structures allow for the spool to feed line (Cayou, Col. 4 lines 67 – Col. 5 line 18). Additionally, as evidenced by Collins it is well known in the art for the first rotational direction to be opposite the second rotational direction (Collins, Fig. 14-16A, 98 and 100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the device of Foster in view of Collins to feature the drive assembly and stop assembly of Cayou and, as evidenced by Collins, for the first and second rotational directions to be opposite one another as such features allow for line to be feed by the spool.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Zien (US 4,245,454 A).
Regarding claim 8, Foster teaches a trimmer head (Foster, Fig. 1, 20) for a power tool (Foster, Fig. 1, 22), the trimmer head comprising:
a drive shaft (Foster, Fig. 8-9, 36’) defining an axis of rotation, the drive shaft rotatably driven by a drive element (Foster, Fig. 8, 28’ and 34’);
a cartridge (Foster, Fig. 8, 64’) including a segment of trimmer line (Foster, Fig. 8, 38’), the cartridge being rotatable about the axis of rotation (Foster, Col. 6, lines 29-34);
wherein in response to the drive element stopping the cartridge releases a portion of the segment of trimmer line (Foster, Col. 8, lines 59-68).
Foster does not teach a lifting element configured to translate in a direction along the axis of rotation and selectively displace the cartridge in the direction along the axis of rotation, an inertial driving element configured to displace the lifting element, and wherein displacing the lifting element causes the cartridge to release a portion of the segment of trimmer line. It should be noted that while Foster does not teach these elements Foster does teach alternative pay out structures including pawls (Foster, Fig. 8-9, 58’) and surfaces (Foster, Fig. 8-9, 82’, 84’, 86’, and 88’) which interface during rotation and actuate when the motor is stopped (Foster, Col. 8, lines 3-47).
Zien teaches a trimmer header (Zien, Fig. 1-13, 10) featuring a lifting element (Zien, Fig. 10, 144) configured to translate in a direction along the axis of rotation and selectively displace the cartridge in the direction along the axis of rotation (Zien, Col. 1 line 64 – Col. 2 line 3); and an inertial driving element (Zien, Fig. 8-9, 50 and 138) configured to displace the lifting element (Zien, Fig. 10, 144), and wherein displacing the lifting element causes the cartridge to release a portion of the segment of trimmer line (Zien, Col. 8, lines 36-64). Such structure is an alternative to the pawls and surface taught by Foster and allows for line to be payed out during more rapid deceleration (Zien, Col. 3, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Foster to include a lifting element configured to translate in a direction along the axis of rotation and selectively displace the cartridge in the direction along the axis of rotation, an inertial driving element configured to displace the lifting element when the drive element is slowing, and wherein displacing the lifting element causes the cartridge to release a portion of the segment of trimmer line like that taught by Zien as such structures allow for line to be payed out during more rapid deceleration.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Zien (US 4,245,454 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Collins (US 4,835,867 A).
Regarding claim 14, Foster in view of Zien teaches the trimmer head of claim 8, comprising a flywheel (Foster, Fig. 8, 128), wherein the cartridge (Foster, Fig. 8, 64’) is rotatably keyed with the flywheel (Foster, Figs. 8-9, 58’, 82’, 84’, 86’, and 88’).
Foster in view of Zien does not teach wherein the cartridge is rotatably coupled to the drive shaft through a flywheel. The cartridge (Foster, Fig. 8, 64’) taught by Foster is formed with the drive shaft (Foster, Fig. 8-9, 36’).
Collins teaches a cartridge (Collins, Fig. 2, 6-8, and 14-17, 65) that is rotatably coupled to the drive shaft (Collins, Fig. 2 and 7, 34) through a flywheel (Collins, Fig. 2, 6-8, and 14-17, 35).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Foster in view of Zien such that the cartridge is rotatably coupled to the drive shaft through a flywheel as taught by Collins as doing so allows the spool to rotate separately from the drive shaft.
Regarding claim 23, Foster in view of Zien and Collins teaches the trimmer head of claim 14.
Foster in view of Zien and Collins does not teach wherein the flywheel is disposed between the lifting element and the cartridge.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Foster in view of Zien and Collins such that the flywheel was disposed between the lifting element and the cartridge or in another alternative arrangement as such a rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art and would not alter the function of the device only that instead of the flywheel driving the lifting element which then drive the cartridge the flywheel would instead directly engage both the lifting elements and the cartridge.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Zien (US 4,245,454 A) and Collins (US 4,835,867 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cayou (4,236,309 A).
Regarding claim 21, Foster in view of Zien and Collins teaches the trimmer head of claim 1, wherein the first and second rotational directions (Collins, Fig. 14-16A, 98 and 100) are opposite one another.
Foster in view of Zien and Collins does not teach wherein the flywheel comprises a drive assembly including one or more rotational drivers configured to transmit torque in a first rotational direction from the motor to the flywheel, a stop assembly including one or more rotational stops configured to selectively interface with one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head to transmit torque in a second rotational direction from the flywheel to one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head, and wherein the first and second rotational directions are opposite one another
Cayou teaches a trimmer head (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 11) wherein the flywheel (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 75) comprises a drive assembly (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 67, 71, and 77) including one or more rotational drivers (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 77) configured to transmit torque in a first rotational direction from the motor to the flywheel (Cayou, Col. 3, lines 62-66), and a stop assembly (Cayou, fig. 1-3, 69, 73, 79) including one or more rotational stops (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 79) configured to selectively interface with one or more complementary stop (Cayou, Fig. 1-3, 73) of the trimmer head to transmit torque in a second rotational direction from the flywheel to the one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head (Cayou, Col. 4, lines 12-13), when engaged the complementary stop of Cayou imparts some torque against the rotational stops of Cayou against a rotation in a first direction to stop the spool thus the structures of Cayou are capable of transmitting torque in a second rotational direction. Such structures allow for the spool to feed line (Cayou, Col. 4 lines 67 – Col. 5 line 18). Additionally, as evidenced by Collins it is well known in the art for the first rotational direction to be opposite the second rotational direction (Collins, Fig. 14-16A, 98 and 100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Foster in view of Collins to feature the drive assembly and stop assembly of Cayou and, as evidenced by Collins, for the first and second rotational directions to be opposite one another as such features allow for line to be feed by the spool.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Zien (US 4,245,454 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kullberg (US 2021/0037704 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Foster in view of Zien teaches the trimmer head of claim 8.
Foster in view of Zien does not teach the trimmer head further comprising a guide defining a mating interface, wherein the mating interface is configured to guide a complementary mating interface of at least one of the lifting element or the inertial driving element.
Kullberg teaches a trimmer head (Kullberg, Fig. 1-8, 1) comprising a guide (Kullberg, Fig. 6, 1c) defining a mating interface (Kullberg, Fig. 6, 26), wherein the mating interface is configured to guide a complementary mating interface (Kullberg, Fig. 6, 26’) of at least one of the lifting element or the inertial driving element (Kullberg, Fig. 6, 7’). Such structure allows the lifting element or the inertial driving element to rotated relative to the housing due to changes in rotational speed (Kullberg, P. 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the trimmer head taught by Foster in view of Zien to feature a guide defining a mating interface, wherein the mating interface is configured to guide a complementary mating interface of at least one of the lifting element or the inertial driving element like that taught by Kullberg as such structures allow the lifting element or inertial driving element to rotated relative to the housing due to changes in rotational speed.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 4,426,780 A) in view of Collins (US 4,835,867 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zien (US 4,245,454 A).
Regarding claim 33, Foster in view of Collins teaches the trimmer head of claim 1.
Foster in view of Collins does not teach wherein the duration of time corresponding to stopping the motor is less than 500 milliseconds.
Zien teaches wherein the duration of time corresponding to stopping the motor is less than 500 milliseconds (Zien, Col. 7 line 56 – Col. 8 line 5). Specifically, Zien teaches when trimmer line is being released the stopping the of motor is in little as 0.3 seconds or 300 milliseconds (Zien, Col. 7 line 56 – Col. 8 line 5). This allows for the device to be stopped when desired rapidly (Zien, Col. 7, lines 56-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Foster in view of Collins such that duration of time corresponding to stopping the motor is less than 500 milliseconds as taught by Zien as this allows the device to be stopped rapidly whenever a user desires.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 22, 24, and claims 26-31 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires that the subassembly further comprise a lifting element and an inertial driving element. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the lifting element is any structure capable of translating in a direction along an axis of rotation of the cartridge and selectively displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. Similarly, the BRI of the inertial driving element is any structure capable of displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. This function may be read on structures like teeth or ramps as they both include inclined surfaces capable of the stated function. While the prior art of Collins, Cayou, and Everts (US 5,339,526 A) show structures capable of the required function, due to the limitations of claim 3 regarding the rotational drivers, rotational stops and complementary stops, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Collins or Foster such as to feature a second set of teeth to perform the functional limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, as the claim requires all the limitations and is dependent from claim 4 the claim reasons for indication of allowable subject matter is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, as the claim requires all the limitations and is dependent from claim 4 the claim reasons for indication of allowable subject matter is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 22, the claim requires displacing the lifting element toward the one or more complementary stops of the trimmer head. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the lifting element is any structure capable of translating in a direction along an axis of rotation of the cartridge and selectively displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. While the prior art of Collins, Zien, Cayou, and Everts show structures capable of the required function, due to the limitations of claim 21 regarding the rotational drivers, rotational stops and complementary stops, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Collins such as to feature the lifting element being displaced toward the one or more complementary stop of the trimmer head as the lifting elements of the prior art of record are shown to already be engaged with other teeth or elements and are not shown to engaged with a third element. As such, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify lifting element of Collins in view of Zien, Everts, and Cayou or a combination including Foster to be disposed toward the one or more complementary stops or engage the one or more rotational stops.
Regarding claim 24, the claim requires a lifting element comprising a plurality of openings and a inertial driving element comprising a plurality of posts. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the lifting element is any structure capable of translating in a direction along an axis of rotation of the cartridge and selectively displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. Similarly, the BRI of the inertial driving element is any structure capable of displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. While the prior art of Collins and Zien teaches a lifting element the prior art of record does not include a plurality of openings and a plurality of posts for such an element. While openings and posts are well known structures in the art there is no motivation for modification as the lifting elements shown by the prior art of record do not include such structures. As such, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the lifting element of Collins in view of Zien or Foster in view of Zien such as to include a plurality of openings and a plurality of posts.
Regarding claim 26, the claim requires that the subassembly comprise a lifting element and an inertial driving element. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the lifting element is any structure capable of translating in a direction along an axis of rotation of the cartridge and selectively displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. Similarly, the BRI of the inertial driving element is any structure capable of displacing the cartridge in a direction along the axis of rotation. This function may be read on structures like teeth or ramps as they both include inclined surfaces capable of the stated function. While the prior art of Collins, Zien, Cayou, and Everts show structures capable of the required function, due to the limitations regarding the rotational drivers, rotational stops and complementary stops, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Collins such as to feature a second set of teeth to perform the functional limitations of the lifting element and the inertial driving element.
Regarding claims 27-31, as the claim requires all the limitations and is dependent from claim 26 the claim reasons for indication of allowable subject matter is the same as claim 26.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the prior art rejection of record for claims 1, 8, 32 and 33 as failing to teach the claimed structure and the modification of Collins would render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The Examiner disagrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claim to include the phrase “in response to” the claims are now rejected over Foster which accounts for this limitation.
The applicant asserts that claims 3, 14, 21, 23 and 25 are allowable over the prior art of record due to the amendments to claims 1 and 8. The Examiner disagrees, as the claim 1 and 8 have been amended to include limitations not previously considered the claims are now rejected over Foster and as such not currently in a state for allowance.
Examiner’s Note
In view of the prior art of Foster the Examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 8 to include the limitations of claims 4 and 22 respectively.
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights