DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims and/or persuasive remarks: (1) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejections of claims 5-6 and 8-9 over Ulbricht have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-7, 9, 11-15
Withdrawn claims: 1-4
Previously cancelled claims: 10
Newly cancelled claims: 8
Amended claims: 5, 7
New claims: 12-15
Claims currently under consideration: 5-7, 9, 11-15
Currently rejected claims: 5-7, 9, 11-15
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because “comprsies” should be read as “comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the first ram is coupled to the second pressing device by a linear guide”. Claim 7 recites “a transport belt disposed, at least partially, around a wall, opposite the first ram, of the pressing chamber”. Claim 12 recites “the first ram is further coupled to the third pressing device by the linear guide”. Claim 14 recites “a wall forming the front side of the pressing chamber comprises an adjustable thickness”. However, “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.")”. MPEP §2173.05(p).II.
Since the limitation that “the first ram is coupled to the second pressing device by a linear guide” and the limitation “a transport belt disposed, at least partially, around a wall, opposite the first ram, of the pressing chamber” are directed to the structure of an apparatus while the claims themselves are directed toward “[a] method for shaping a strand-shaped foodstuff”, claims 5, 7, and 12 are single claims which claim both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, claims 5 and 12 will be interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram while simultaneously exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram and/or third ram, without requiring the first ram, second ram, and/or third ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise.
Fort the purpose of this examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as a transport belt transporting the meat through the pressing chamber.
For the purpose of this examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as meaning that adapting the width of the foodstuff occurs using a wall forming the front side of the pressing chamber.
The term “slightly greater” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly greater” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of this examination, the term “slightly greater” is interpreted as meaning any amount greater than 0 cm.
Claims 6-7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the first ram and the second ram move by a pressure-controlled movement, and the method further comprises automatically stopping the moving of the first ram and the moving of the second ram when a prespecified final pressure is reached”. Claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, also recites “wherein the first ram and the second ram move by a pressure-controlled movement, and the method further comprises automatically stopping the moving of the first ram and the moving of the second ram when a prespecified final pressure is reached”. Since dependent claim 15 recites the same limitation already recited by claim 1, claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-6, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulbricht (DE 202005018374 U1; IDS citation; English translation attached to original document filed 08/03/2022 relied on for citations in paragraphs; Figures in original document relied on for citations referring to figures) in view of Zimmerman (US 4,147,485).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ulbricht teaches a method for shaping a strand-shaped foodstuff comprising a piece of meat (corresponding to rectangular pressed or molded meat) [0001], [0027], the method comprising: (a) opening a pressing chamber delimited by walls (corresponding to the press attached to vertical cylinder 6 and the press attached to one of side cylinders 7) in that at least one of the walls move relative to at least one other of the walls, thereby releasing an opening cross-section (corresponding to the presses being in an open position); and (b) introducing the foodstuff through the opening cross-section into the pressing chamber (corresponding to conveyor belt 3 transporting the unshaped meat into the chamber) (page 4, paragraph beginning “In 6 is a two-head press) [0023]. Ulbricht teaches that the method then comprises: (c) closing the opening cross-section of the pressing chamber and transitioning the foodstuff from an unshaped state into a shaped state by at least two moving walls configured as a first ram of a first pressing device (corresponding to the press connected to vertical cylinder 6) and a second ram of a second pressing device (corresponding to the press connected to the side cylinder 7) (Fig.1; Fig. 4; [0023]). Ulbricht teaches the method then comprises: (d) releasing an opening cross-section of the pressing chamber; and (e) discharging the shaped foodstuff from the pressing chamber through this opening cross-section (Fig. 1; Fig. 4; [0023]).
Ulbricht teaches that the step of transitioning the foodstuff from an unshaped stated into a shaped state comprises the steps of: contacting the foodstuff with a first wall configured as a first ram of a first pressing device (corresponding to the press attached to the vertical cylinder 6) by moving the first ram perpendicularly to the movement direction of the foodstuff; and contacting the foodstuff with a second wall configured as a second ram of a second pressing device (corresponding to the press attached to one of side cylinders 7) moving the second ram parallel to the movement direction of the foodstuff (Fig.1; [0023]). Ulbricht discloses that operation of the first ram and operation of the second ram preferably occurs sequentially (page 8, paragraph beginning “Device according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the compression pressures), but also discloses that operation of the first ram and operation of the second ram may occur at the same time (page 8, paragraph beginning “Apparatus according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that preferably applied”). Therefore, Ulbricht at least suggests that the first ram of the first pressing device and the second ram of the second pressing device may be moved together. Furthermore, the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. MPEP §2144.04.V.D. Therefore, performing the transitioning steps of Ulbricht simultaneously instead of sequentially is rendered obvious, particularly wherein Applicant has not demonstrated any effect associated with simultaneously contacting the foodstuff with a first ram and second ram.
Although claim 5 is being interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram; and exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram without requiring the first ram and second ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise for the reasons provided in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above, it is noted that Ulbricht teaches that the first and second rams are coupled together as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Ulbricht teaches that the first ram and the second ram move by pressure-controlled movement (corresponding to the pressing device of Ulbricht applying pressure to the meat) (abstract). Ulbricht also teaches that its method and apparatus make it easier to achieve the dimensions desired by the customer (page 2, 2nd bullet under “Advantageous embodiments are intended”; [0008]).
Ulbricht does not disclose that the method further comprises automatically stopping the moving of the first ram and the moving of the second ram when a prespecified final pressure is reached as recited in present claims 5 and 15.
However, Zimmerman discloses that generally in food molding machines, the pressure applied by the ram determines the density of the food so that it is understood that the consistency and the weight of the molded product are related to the forming pressure (column 1, lines 6-27). Zimmerman also teaches that the mold cavities are dimensioned such that the food will be a desired size and shape as a result of the pressure exerted by the rams (column 1 lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Ulbricht to include automatically stopping the exertion of pressure on the meat product when a prespecified final pressure is reached as taught by Zimmerman. Since Ulbricht teaches that moving of the first ram and the second ram to shape the meat product occurs by pressure-controlled movement (abstract); and teaches that the method and apparatus make it easier to achieve the dimensions desired by the customer (page 2, 2nd bullet under “Advantageous embodiments are intended”; [0008]), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that the shape of the meat is predetermined by the customer such that it would be obvious that the amount of pressure needed to form the predetermined shape is also predetermined as Zimmerman teaches this step generally occurs in pressure-controlled meat molding processes. As such, it would obvious for the first ram and second ram to stop moving/pressing when the predetermined pressure is achieved. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including introducing the foodstuff into the pressing chamber and discharging the foodstuff from the pressing chamber by a transport belt (corresponding to conveyor belt 3) (Fig. 1; [0023]) as recited in present claim 6. Since the conveyor belt feeds the unshaped foodstuff through one side of the pressing chamber and discharges the shaped foodstuff from an opposite side of the pressing chamber, Ulbricht teaches that feed of the unshaped foodstuff and discharging of the shaped foodstuff take place on opposites sides of the pressing chamber by moving the foodstuff in the same direction as recited by present claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including the transitioning the foodstuff from an unshaped stated into a shaped state further comprises: contacting the foodstuff with a third wall configured as a third ram of a third pressing device (corresponding to the press attached to another side cylinder 7); and moving the third ram in parallel to the movement direct of the foodstuff (Fig. 4; [0023]). Ulbricht teaches that movement of the third ram occurs simultaneously with the movement of the second ram (corresponding to side pressure by means of the double-sided paired side cylinders 7) (page 3, 2nd bullet under paragraph beginning “on a base frame”) as recited by present claim 12.
Ulbricht discloses that operation of the first ram and operation of the third ram preferably occurs sequentially (page 8, paragraph beginning “Device according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the compression pressures), but also discloses that operation of the first ram and operation of the third ram may occur at the same time (page 8, paragraph beginning “Apparatus according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that preferably applied”). Therefore, Ulbricht at least suggests that the first ram of the first pressing device and the third ram of the second pressing device may be moved together. Furthermore, the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. MPEP §2144.04.V.D. Therefore, performing the transitioning steps of Ulbricht simultaneously instead of sequentially is rendered obvious, particularly wherein Applicant has not demonstrated any effect associated with simultaneously contacting the foodstuff with a first ram and third ram.
Although claim 12 is being interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram; and exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram and/or third ram without requiring the first ram, second ram, and third ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise for the reasons provided in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above, it is noted that Ulbricht teaches that the first ram, second ram, and third rams are coupled together as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 13, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including the method further comprising determining the position of the unformed meat using light barriers (page 8, paragraph beginning “Device according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the press room is formed”). Since determining the position of the unformed meat would involve detection the edges of the unformed meat, the step of determining position of the unformed meat involves measuring the length of the unformed meat. In regards to adjusting the distance between the second ram and an opposing wall to be greater than the length of the foodstuff, Ulbricht teaches that the wall opposite the second ram is another ram (corresponding to the second ram being one of side cylinders 7 and the opposite wall being the other one of side cylinders 7) so that both the second ram and the opposing wall come together to press an unformed foodstuff into a shape (Fig. 4). Since the foodstuff is shaped by pressing the sides of the foodstuff by the second ram and the opposing wall after opening the pressing chamber formed by the second ram and opposing wall and then introducing the foodstuff into the opening pressure chamber (page 4, paragraph beginning “In 6 is a two-head press; [0023]), Ulbricht at least suggests that the distance between the second ram and the opposing wall is greater than the length of the foodstuff, thereby rendering claim 13 obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including the method further comprising a wall forming the front side of the pressing chamber (corresponding to the one of side cylinders 7 opposite the second ram) so that both the second ram and the opposing wall come together to press an unformed foodstuff into a shape (Fig. 4). Therefore, the wall forming the front side of the pressing chamber comprises an adjustable thickness wherein adjusting the thickness of the wall occurs during pressing so that the front side adapts a width of the foodstuff, thereby rendering present claim 14 obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulbricht (DE 202005018374 U1; IDS citation; English translation attached to original document filed 08/03/2022 relied on for citations in paragraphs; Figures in original document relied on for citations referring to figures) in view of Zimmerman (US 4,147,485) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Langlands (US 3,728,136 A; previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including introducing the foodstuff into the pressing chamber and discharging the foodstuff from the pressing chamber by a transport belt (corresponding to conveyor belt 3) (Fig. 1; [0023]). Ulbricht does not disclose that the transport belt is at least partially disposed around a wall of the pressing chamber that is opposite the first ram of the pressing chamber.
However, Langlands teaches an apparatus for shaping a foodstuff comprising a transport belt 28 for feeding and discharging a piece of meat to and from a pressing chamber, wherein the transport belt is disposed on the surface of a wall opposite a ram applying pressure to the top of the foodstuff (Figs. 2 and 4l; column 4, lines 36-44).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Ulbricht by replacing the transport belt of Ulbricht with the transport belt taught by Langlands as such a modification represents the selection of a transport system known in the art that allows for sufficient transport functionality. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).” MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulbricht (DE 202005018374 U1; IDS citation; English translation attached to original document filed 08/03/2022 relied on for citations in paragraphs; Figures in original document relied on for citations referring to figures) in view of Zimmerman (US 4,147,485) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Völkl (DE102018106299; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations).
Regarding claim 11, Ulbricht teaches that the pressed meat is sliced into cold cuts after pressing [0001]. Ulbricht does not teach that a temperature of the edge region of the foodstuff is lower than the temperature of the core region of the foodstuff.
However, Völkl teaches a method of pressing and subsequently slicing meat (lines 14-16), wherein the edge region of the meat is frozen prior to pressing in order to make it easier to create clean-cut edges in the meat when slicing the meat (lines 61-63). Therefore, Völkl teaches that a temperature of the edge region of the foodstuff is lower than the temperature of the core region of the foodstuff.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ulbricht in order to provide a foodstuff having a lower temperature in its edge region than in its core region as taught by Völkl. Since Ulbricht teaches that the pressed meat is sliced into cold cuts after pressing [0001], a skilled practitioner consulting Völkl would readily recognize that freezing the edge region of the foodstuff would provide the benefit of creating clean slices in the subsequently sliced meat. Therefore, the claimed temperature of the edge region of the foodstuff being lower than the temperature of the core region of the foodstuff is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 5-9 and 11: Applicant canceled claim 8 which moots the rejection. Applicant amended claims 5 and 7. However, claims 5-7, 9, and 11 remain rejected for the reasons described above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) of claims 5-6 and 8-9 over Ulbricht: Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ulbricht and Zimmerman.
Applicant canceled claim 8, thereby mooting its rejection. Applicant amended claim 5 to recite that the first ram and second ram are coupled together by a linear guide such that the first ram and second ram are moved together. Applicant argued that Ulbricht teaches moving the first ram and second ram separately in [0023] so that Ulbricht does not disclose the coupled rams. Applicant stated that the present invention relies on the coupling the first ram to at least one other ram and the coupled rams moving together. Applicant stated that moving the coupled rams together eliminates the need for a further device to move the coupled ram, thus saving cost and space for the apparatus (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 1st paragraph under “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102” – page 9, 2nd paragraph).
However, as described above in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection and the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of amended claim 5, Applicant’s arguments regarding the physical coupling of the rams are directed to a structure of an apparatus while the present claims are directed to a method. As such, claim 5 is being interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram while simultaneously exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram without requiring the first ram and second ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise since physical coupling is related to a structure of an apparatus and not a method. As described above in the prior art rejection of amended claim 5, it is noted that Ulbricht teaches that the first and second rams are coupled together as can be seen in Fig. 3, even if Ulbricht discloses the physical coupling of the ram for the purpose of ease of cleaning, tool change, and repair.
In regard to Applicant’s assertion that Ulbricht does not teach simultaneously movement of the first and second rams, Ulbricht discloses that operation of the first ram and operation of the second ram preferably occurs sequentially (page 8, paragraph beginning “Device according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the compression pressures). However, Ulbricht also discloses that operation of the first ram and operation of the second ram may occur at the same time (page 8, paragraph beginning “Apparatus according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that preferably applied”). Therefore, Ulbricht at least suggests that the first ram of the first pressing device and the second ram of the second pressing device may be moved together. Furthermore, the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. MPEP §2144.04.V.D. Therefore, performing the transitioning steps of Ulbricht simultaneously instead of sequentially is rendered obvious, particularly wherein Applicant has not demonstrated any effect associated with simultaneously contacting the foodstuff with a first ram and second ram.
Applicant then argued that Ulbricht does not teach “wherein the first ram and the second ram move by a pressure-controlled movement, and the method further comprises automatically stopping the moving of the first ram and the moving of the second ram when a prespecified final pressure is reached” as now recited by amended claim 5 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 10, 1st-2nd paragraphs).
However, as described above in the rejection of amended claim 5, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Ulbricht to include automatically stopping the exertion of pressure on the meat product when a prespecified final pressure is reached as taught by Zimmerman. Since Ulbricht teaches that moving of the first ram and the second ram to shape the meat product occurs by pressure-controlled movement (abstract); and teaches that the method and apparatus makes it easier to achieve the dimensions desired by the customer (page 2, 2nd bullet under “Advantageous embodiments are intended”; [0008]), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that the shape of the meat is predetermined by the customer such that it would be obvious that the amount of pressure needed to form the predetermined shape is also predetermined since Zimmerman teaches this step generally occurs in pressure-controlled meat molding processes. As such, it would obvious for the first ram and second ram to stop moving/pressing when the predetermined pressure is achieved.
In the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the claims, the features of claims 5, 6, and 9 are now rendered obvious by the combination of Ulbricht and Zimmerman. The rejection of claim 8 is moot due to its cancellation.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 7 over Ulbricht and Langlands: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argued that Langlands does not teach “wherein the first ram and the second ram move by a pressure-controlled movement, and the method further comprises automatically stopping the moving of the first ram and the moving of the second ram when a prespecified final pressure is reached” as now recited by amended claim 5, and thus does not remedy the aforementioned deficiency of Ulbricht (Applicant’s Remarks, page 9, 1st paragraph under “Rejection over Ulbricht and Langlands” – page 11, 3rd paragraph).
However, in the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the claims, the features of claim 5 are now rendered obvious by the combination of Ulbricht and Zimmerman. Langlands is continued to be relied on for its teachings regarding the additional features of claim 7.
Since the prior art has been shown to render claims 5 and 7 obvious as described in the prior art rejections above, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 11 over Ulbricht and Volkl: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argued that Volkl does not teach “wherein the first ram and the second ram move by a pressure-controlled movement, and the method further comprises automatically stopping the moving of the first ram and the moving of the second ram when a prespecified final pressure is reached” as now recited by amended claim 5, and thus does not remedy the aforementioned deficiency of Ulbricht (Applicant’s Remarks, page 11, 1st paragraph under “Rejection over Ulbricht and Volkl” – page 12, 3rd paragraph).
However, in the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the claims, the features of claim 5 are now rendered obvious by the combination of Ulbricht and Zimmerman. Volkl is continued to be relied on for its teachings regarding the additional features of claim 11.
Since the prior art has been shown to render claims 5 and 11 obvious as described in the prior art rejections above, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
New Claims: Applicant argued that new claims 12-15 are patentable by reason of dependency from claim 5 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 12, paragraph under “New Claims”).
However, the new claims stand rejected for the reasons written in the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections above.
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 Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights