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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1, and 4-6 have been amended. Claims 1-6, and 8-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant has argued that the Final Action mailed 9/30/25 “concedes that the cited art fails to disclose ‘the exhaust gas purification device is coupled to the second side of the cylinder head’ when indicating that claim 7 and its intervening claims include allowable subjected matter” and therefore “the cited art fails to disclose the language newly added to claim 1” (see Remarks filed 12/18/25, Page 6). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because the amendment to claim 1 does not include all of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims. Kurata et al. (U.S. 2013/0269341) discloses all of the newly added limitations to amended claim 1. Kurata discloses an exhaust gas purification device (44) configured to purify exhaust gas from an exhaust manifold (14)(see Fig. 1 and Para 22). Kurata discloses wherein a first side (Modified Fig. 1 below - C) of a cylinder head (11) and a second side (Modified Fig. 1 below - D) of the cylinder head (11) intersect at a corner (Modified Fig. 1 below - B) of the cylinder head (11)(see Modified Fig. 1 below); and wherein the exhaust gas purification device (44) is coupled to the second side (Modified Fig. 1 below - D) of the cylinder head (11)(see Modified Fig. 1 below - element 44 is shown coupled to element D through elements 14, 20, 30, and 43). Therefore Kurata discloses all of the newly amended limitations of claim 1, and claim 1 is unpatentable over Kurata in view of Gobert et al. (U.S. 2006/0123786) and Hamoaka (JP2015086724A) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as rejected in detail below.
Applicant has argued claims 4-6, 9-10, 15-16, and 18 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 12/18/25, Pages 6-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
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 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (U.S. 2013/0269341) in view of Gobert et al. (U.S. 2006/0123786) and further in view of Hamoaka (JP2015086724A).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Kurata discloses an engine device (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a cylinder head (11, cylinder head - Para 20);
an exhaust manifold (14, exhaust gas manifold - Para 20);
an exhaust gas purification device (44, exhaust gas purification device - Para 22) configured to purify exhaust gas from the exhaust manifold (14)(see Fig. 1 and Para 22); and
a two-stage turbocharger (1, multi-stage supercharging apparatus - Para 19) including a high-pressure turbocharger (20, high-pressure stage turbocharger - Para 19) and a low-pressure turbocharger (30, low-pressure stage turbocharger - Para 19); and
wherein:
the high-pressure turbocharger (20) is mounted on the exhaust manifold (14)(see Figs. 2-3);
the low-pressure turbocharger (30) is
the low-pressure turbocharger (30) is arranged above the exhaust manifold (14)(see Figs. 2-3);
the high-pressure turbocharger (20) and the low-pressure turbocharger (30) are coupled to each other (see Figs. 2-3);
in a plan view of the engine device, a element 11) that is less than a distance between element 20 and 11 (a portion of the total distance between element 20 and element 11)));
a first side (Modified Fig. 1 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of first side of element 11)) of the cylinder head (11) and a second side (Modified Fig. 1 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of second side of element 11)) of the cylinder head (11) intersect at a corner (Modified Fig. 1 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of corner of element 11)) of the cylinder head (11)(see Modified Fig. 1 above); and
the exhaust gas purification device (44) is coupled to the second side (Modified Fig. 1 above - D) of the cylinder head (11)(see Modified Fig. 1 above - element 44 is shown coupled to element D through elements 14, 20, 30, and 43).
Kurata fails to disclose wherein the low-pressure turbocharger is attached to the cylinder head (Kurata discloses the low-pressure turbocharger 30 being indirectly connected to the cylinder head 11 through the high-pressure turbocharger 20 as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, however this is not within broadest reasonable interpretation of the low-pressure turbocharger being attached to the cylinder head when viewed in light of the specification of the instant application which in Para 0070 of US2022/0349332 (PGPUB of the instant application) describes a direct attachment between low-pressure turbocharger and cylinder head).
Gobert teaches wherein a low-pressure turbocharger (22, low-pressure turbo unit - Para 22) is attached to a cylinder head (Para 22 - “…low-pressure turbo unit 22 is mounted on the engine block 10 by means of a bracket 36, which is connected by screws to the outlet 37 of the low-pressure turbine 21… other engine components could be used for the suspension mounting of the turbocharger, such as, for example, the cylinder head” (mounting by means of bracket 36 is a type of attaching)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the attachment of the low-pressure turbocharger to the cylinder head of Gobert in the system of Kurata (thereby making the low-pressure turbocharger of Kurata be attached to the cylinder head of Kurata as taught by Gobert) for the advantage of being able to provide additional support to the low-pressure turbocharger (Gobert; see Fig. 4 where additional support for low-pressure turbocharger 22 is shown provided via 36) and additionally for the advantage of being able to place the turbocharger in a position which allows for the use of a short air duct (Gobert; Para 23 - “…This placement is advantageous, since the induction port from the air filter of the engine is normally in a heavy goods vehicle placed in the rear part of the engine compartment, which produces a short air duct 25…”).
Kurata/Gobert fails to disclose or teach wherein in a plan view of the engine device, a total distance between the low-pressure turbocharger and the cylinder head is less than a total distance between the high-pressure turbocharger and the cylinder head.
Hamoaka teaches an engine device (25, diesel engine - Para 21) wherein in a plan view (Fig. 7 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Fig. 7 as a type of plan view of element 25 (see Para 23 of US2016/0252008 which is the US PGPUB corresponding to JP2015086724A))) of the engine device (25), a total distance between a low-pressure turbocharger (58, low-pressure turbocharger - Para 28) and a cylinder head (46, cylinder head - Para 25) is less than a total distance between a high-pressure turbocharger (56, high-pressure turbocharger - Para 28) and the cylinder head (46)(see Fig. 7 (element 58 is clearly shown closer to element 46 than element 56; also see Para 40)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine device of Kurata/Gobert after that of Hamoaka, thereby making the total distance between the low-pressure turbocharger of Kurata and the cylinder head of Kurata be less than the total distance between the high-pressure turbocharger of Kurata and the cylinder head of Kurata, in the way taught by Hamoaka, for the advantage of being able to stably install the high-pressure turbocharger so that support structure of the turbochargers can be simplified (Hamoaka; Para 40).
Re claim 2:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses wherein the high-pressure turbocharger (20) is arranged near the exhaust manifold (14)(see Figs. 2-3).
Re claim 3:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses wherein the low-pressure turbocharger (30) is arranged on an exhaust outlet side (25c, high-pressure stage exhaust outlet - Para 21) of the high-pressure turbocharger (20)(see Figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata discloses wherein the low-pressure turbocharger (30) is exhaust gas manifold 14)) of the cylinder head (11)(see Fig. 3 - 35b (which is part of 30 as shown in Fig. 4 and as described in Paras 33 and 35) is shown coupled to cylinder head 11 through 20 (25b and 25a are part of 20 as shown in Fig. 4 and described in Para 40) and 14 which is an indirect coupling and is different than the claimed invention).
Kurata fails to disclose wherein the low-pressure turbocharger is fixed to an exhaust side surface of the cylinder head.
Gobert teaches wherein a low-pressure turbocharger (22, low-pressure turbo unit - Para 22) is fixed to a surface of a cylinder head (Para 22 - “…low-pressure turbo unit 22 is mounted on the engine block 10 by means of a bracket 36, which is connected by screws to the outlet 37 of the low-pressure turbine 21… other engine components could be used for the suspension mounting of the turbocharger, such as, for example, the cylinder head” (mounting by means of bracket 36 is a type of attaching requiring a type of surface)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the cylinder head surface of Gobert could have been the cylinder head exhaust side surface of Kurata as both surfaces are surfaces of a cylinder head.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the fixing of the low-pressure turbocharger to the surface of cylinder head of Gobert in the system of Kurata (thereby making the low-pressure turbocharger of Kurata be fixed to the exhaust side surface of cylinder head of Kurata as taught by Gobert) for the advantage of being able to provide additional support to the low-pressure turbocharger (Gobert; see Fig. 4 where additional support for low-pressure turbocharger 22 is shown provided via 36) and additionally for the advantage of being able to place the turbocharger in a position which allows for the use of a short air duct (Gobert; Para 23 - “…This placement is advantageous, since the induction port from the air filter of the engine is normally in a heavy goods vehicle placed in the rear part of the engine compartment, which produces a short air duct 25…”).
Re claim 13:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses the engine device (Figs. 1-5) further comprising an air-intake manifold (13, intake manifold - Para 20), wherein the exhaust manifold (14) is arranged on an exhaust side surface (Modified Fig. 1 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of exhaust side surface of element 11 as element C is shown adjacent exhaust gas manifold 14)) of the cylinder head (11), and the air-intake manifold (13) is arranged on an air intake side (Modified Fig. 1 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of air intake side of element 11 as element E is shown adjacent intake manifold 13)) of the cylinder head (11)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Re claim 14:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses the engine device (Figs. 1-5) further comprising an air-intake manifold (13, intake manifold - Para 20) that is integrally formed with the cylinder head (11)(see Fig. 1).
Claims 4-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (U.S 2013/0269341) in view of Gobert et al. (U.S. 2006/0123786) and Hamoaka (JP2015086724A), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kosaka et al. (U.S. 2011/0167808).
Re claim 4:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 3 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses wherein an exhaust gas inlet (Modified Fig. 1 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of exhaust gas inlet)) of the exhaust gas purification device (44) is arranged (see Modified Fig. 1 above) disclosed opposite to the inlet identified in Modified Fig. 1 above at element A)) of the exhaust gas purification device (44)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka fails to disclose wherein an exhaust gas inlet of the exhaust gas purification device is arranged opposite the exhaust outlet of the exhaust gas purification device and against the low-pressure turbocharger.
Kosaka teaches an engine device (Figs. 8-11) wherein an exhaust gas inlet (23, exhaust inlet flange - Para 43; 48, exhaust inlet pipe - Para 92 (elements 23 and 48 are collectively a type of exhaust gas inlet as shown in Figs. 9 and 11)) of an exhaust gas purification device (4, exhaust gas treatment apparatus - Para 43) is arranged opposite an exhaust outlet (49, exhaust outlet pipe - Para 96) of the exhaust gas purification device (4)(see Figs. 8-9) and against a turbocharger (62, super charger - Para 144 (a type of turbocharger as shown in Fig. 11 and as described in Para 144))(see Fig. 11 and Para 216).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the arrangement of exhaust gas purification device against a turbocharger of Kosaka could have been applied to the exhaust gas purification device of Kurata to place the exhaust gas purification device of Kurata against the low-pressure turbocharger of Kurata as Kosaka teaches mounting the exhaust gas purification device against the most downstream turbocharger (Kosaka; see Fig. 11) and the low-pressure turbocharger of Kurata is the most downstream turbocharger (Kurata; see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine device of Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka after that of Kosaka (by applying the arrangement of exhaust gas purification device of Kosaka to the exhaust gas purification device of Kurata, to place the exhaust gas purification device of Kurata against the low-pressure turbocharger of Kurata, and with the exhaust gas purification device inlet of Kurata opposite the exhaust gas purification device outlet of Kurata in the way taught by Kosaka) for the advantage of being able to place the exhaust gas treatment apparatus in a location under a bonnet where there is the largest gap between the engine and the bonnet (Kosaka; see Fig. 15 and Para 216)
Re claim 5:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka/Kosaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 4 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses the engine device (Figs. 1-5) wherein the exhaust gas inlet (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) of the exhaust gas purification device (44) is arranged near the corner (Modified Fig. 1 above - B) of the cylinder head (11)(see Modified Fig. 1 above (element A is shown near element B)).
Re claim 6:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka/Kosaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 5 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses wherein the first side (Modified Fig. 1 above - C) is an exhaust gas side (see Modified Fig. 1 above at C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of exhaust gas side is shown at element C as element 14 is “an exhaust gas manifold” per Para 20)).
Claims 9, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (U.S 2013/0269341) in view of Gobert et al. (U.S. 2006/0123786) and Hamoaka (JP2015086724A), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gunkel et al. (U.S. 2012/0255528).
Re claims 9, and 15-16:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses wherein the high-pressure turbocharger (20) and the low-pressure turbocharger (30) are coupled to each other via a pipe (see Fig. 4 at elements 25c, 28b, 38a, and 35a).
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka fails to teach wherein the high-pressure turbocharger and the low-pressure turbocharger are coupled to each other via a flexible pipe (claim 9); nor wherein the flexible pipe has an L-shaped bent portion (claim 15); nor wherein the flexible pipe includes a flexible straight portion on a high-pressure turbocharger side of the L-shaped bent portion (claim 16).
Gunkel teaches wherein an exhaust gas outlet (see Fig. 3 at 15a and Para 29 - “…When an internal combustion engine is operated, the exhaust stream thereof first flows through the high-pressure turbocharger, for example, exits the turbine outlet thereof…”) of a high-pressure turbocharger (15, turbocharger - Para 40 (a type of high-pressure turbocharger per Figs. 1-3, and Paras 28 and 30)) and an exhaust gas inlet (see Fig. 3 at 17a and Para 29 - “…to the turbine inlet of the low-pressure turbocharger…”) of a low-pressure turbocharger (17, turbocharger - Para 40 (a type of low-pressure turbocharger per Figs. 1-3, and Paras 28 and 30)) are coupled with each other through a flexible pipe (1, pipe arrangement - Para 28 (see Paras 34-35))(see Figs. 1-3 and Paras 28-30); and wherein the flexible pipe (1) has an L-shaped bent portion (9, second pipe section - Para 31 (see Fig. 2)); and wherein the flexible pipe (1) includes a flexible straight portion (10, compensating element - Para 34 (see Paras 34-35)) on the high-pressure turbocharger (15) side of the bent portion (9)(see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the pipe of Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka after that of Gunkel, thereby making the pipe of Kurata a flexible pipe as taught by Gunkel such that the pipe of Kurata has an L-shaped bent portion and includes a flexible straight portion on the high-pressure turbocharger side of the bent portion, all in the way taught by Gunkel, for the advantage of compensating for twisting movements during installation (Gunkel; Para 34).
Re claims 9 and 18:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata further discloses wherein the high-pressure turbocharger (20) and the low-pressure turbocharger (30) are coupled to each other via a pipe (see Fig. 4 at elements 25c, 28b, 38a, and 35a).
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka fails to teach wherein the high-pressure turbocharger and the low-pressure turbocharger are coupled to each other via a flexible pipe (claim 9); nor wherein, starting from the high-pressure turbocharger, in order, the flexible pipe includes a portion connected to the high-pressure turbocharger, a straight portion, a bent portion, and a portion connected to the low-pressure turbocharger.
Gunkel teaches wherein an exhaust gas outlet (see Fig. 3 at 15a and Para 29 - “…When an internal combustion engine is operated, the exhaust stream thereof first flows through the high-pressure turbocharger, for example, exits the turbine outlet thereof…”) of a high-pressure turbocharger (15, turbocharger - Para 40 (a type of high-pressure turbocharger per Figs. 1-3, and Paras 28 and 30)) and an exhaust gas inlet (see Fig. 3 at 17a and Para 29 - “…to the turbine inlet of the low-pressure turbocharger…”) of a low-pressure turbocharger (17, turbocharger - Para 40 (a type of low-pressure turbocharger per Figs. 1-3, and Paras 28 and 30)) are coupled with each other through a flexible pipe (1, pipe arrangement - Para 28 (see Paras 34-35))(see Figs. 1-3 and Paras 28-30); and wherein, starting from the high-pressure turbocharger (15), in order, the flexible pipe (1) includes a portion (8, first pipe section - Para 31) connected to the high-pressure turbocharger (15)(see Figs. 1-3), a straight portion (10, compensating element - Para 34), a bent portion (9, second pipe section - Para 31 (see Figs. 1-3)), and a portion (19, flange element - Para 41) connected to the low-pressure turbocharger (17)(see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the pipe of Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka after that of Gunkel, thereby making the pipe of Kurata a flexible pipe as taught by Gunkel such starting from the high-pressure turbocharger of Kurata, in order, the flexible pipe includes a portion connected to the high-pressure turbocharger, a straight portion, a bent portion, and a portion connected to the low-pressure turbocharger, all in the way taught by Gunkel, for the advantage of compensating for twisting movements during installation (Gunkel; Para 34).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (U.S 2013/0269341) in view of Gobert et al. (U.S. 2006/0123786) and Hamoaka (JP2015086724A), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ruppel et al. (U.S. 2015/0337698).
Re claim 10:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka fails to teach the engine device further comprising a blow-by gas recirculation device that includes a blow-by gas outlet, wherein the blow-by gas outlet is arranged above a cylinder head.
Ruppel teaches wherein an engine device (1, internal combustion engine - Para 37) further comprises a blow-by gas recirculation device (12, crankcase ventilation device - Para 39 (a type of blow-by gas recirculation device as it is described in Para 39 including blow-by gas path which is shown being recirculated to intake in Fig. 1)) that includes a blow-by gas outlet (14, return line - Para 39 (a type of blow-by gas outlet as shown in Fig. 1)), wherein the blow-by gas outlet is arranged above a cylinder head (4, cylinder head - Para 37)(see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the engine device of Kurata/Gobert/Homoaka after that of Ruppel, thereby including the recirculation device, associated components, and positioning thereof of Ruppel in the engine device of Kurata for the advantage of ensuring that blow-by gas does not enter the environment but is fed to the combustion process of the internal combustion engine (Ruppel; Para 26).
Re claim 11:
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka/Ruppel teaches the engine device (Kurata; Figs. 1-5) according to claim 10 (as described above).
Kurata/Gobert/Hamoaka/Ruppel teaches wherein the blow-by gas outlet (element 14 of Ruppel included in engine device of Kurata in combination described above regarding claim 10) is coupled to the low-pressure turbocharger (Kurata; 30)(including element 14 of Ruppel in the engine device of Kurata (described in combination regarding claim 10 above) results in a coupling of the included element 14 with element 30 as both would be coupled to the engine of Kurata and would be coupled to each other therethrough).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 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.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8 and 17 would be allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the low-pressure turbocharger is arranged such that an exhaust gas outlet of the low-pressure turbocharger faces the second side of the cylinder head” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 8.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach wherein “the flexible straight portion is a bellows portion” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 17 and 19-20.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/27/26