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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner's consideration of the information disclosure statements is limited to a cursory review of the cited references due to the high number of references listed and the breadth of topics covered by the references. If Applicant is aware of particular references or particular portions of the cited references that are particularly pertinent to the claims, Applicant is invited to highlight those references/portions for more thorough consideration by Examiner.
The second information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 4/26/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A foreign patent document IN 3625MUM2015 published on 9/24/2015 has not been provided. Although a document for Indian application number 3625/MUM/2015 has been provided, this does not appear to be the number for a foreign patent document itself, and 9/24/2015 is the listed filing date, not a publication date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Additionally, the second IDS filed 4/26/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Neither translations nor concise explanations for each of EP 3679774, EP 3501248, EP 3895514, DE 102016000332, EP 3782443, and BR 102019023272 were included. This IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to these references has not been considered.
The fifth IDS filed 4/26/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Neither a translation nor a concise explanation of DE 1550996 was included. This IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to this reference has not been considered.
Numerous references are repeated among the information disclosure statements. Due to the various errors in the IDS documents, Applicant is respectfully requested to carefully review such documents before submission.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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) is/are: "a switching assembly" in claims 9 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Limitations of "a switching assembly" are interpreted to require structure having at least one valve (or equivalent switching structure), as described in paras. 0065 and 0066 of the specification and shown in Fig. 5.
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.
Additionally, the BRI is limited by the specification’s explicit definition of the term "row": "As used herein with respect to the tillage implement 10, 'row' refers to an arrangement of disc blades 32 that extends along a direction crosswise to the direction of travel 28 and does not overlap another row along the direction of travel 28." (See Specification, para. 0016.) As per MPEP § 2111.01(IV), this definition controls interpretation of the term "row" as it is used in the claims (i.e., in claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19).
It is also noted that limitations of conduits being "configured to enable fluid flow between" specified actuators (as recited in claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 16, and 19) are interpreted to require conduits that allow unobstructed flow between the specified actuators, such that the flow is not permanently blocked by structure so fluid within one of the specified actuators is capable of eventually reaching the other of the specified actuators. For example, Fig. 5 of the instant application shows a conduit (including 186) configured to enable fluid flow between actuators 46 and 54, but Fig. 5 does NOT show a conduit configured to enable fluid flow between actuators 46 and 62 since a conduit comprising 186 and 188 has flow obstructed by 54.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-3 and 5-7 be allowed, claims 10-16, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. The features of the combination found in claims 10-16 (e.g., features of a frame and disc blade supports) are required by the subcombination in claims 1-7 (wherein claim 5 depends from claim 4) to such an extent that the combination claims are substantial duplicates of the subcombination claims. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennes (US 9,370,137) in view of Maro (US 2022/0053684).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Hennes discloses a tillage implement, comprising:
a frame (see annotated Fig. A, below);
a first disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A) pivotally coupled to the frame at a first pivot point (12P), wherein the first disc blade support is configured to support a first plurality of disc blades (as shown in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A);
a second disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A) pivotally coupled to the frame at a second pivot point (see annotated Fig. A), wherein the second disc blade support is configured to support a second plurality of disc blades (as shown in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A); and
a disc blade angle adjustment system, comprising:
a first actuator (57L) comprising a cylinder, a piston disposed within the cylinder, and a single rod extending from the piston, wherein the first actuator is coupled to the frame and to the first disc blade support (as shown in annotated Fig. A), and the first actuator is configured to drive the first disc blade support to pivot relative to the frame to control a first (yaw) angle between the first plurality of disc blades and a direction of travel of the tillage implement;
a second actuator (57R) comprising a cylinder, a piston disposed within the cylinder of the second actuator, and a single rod extending from the piston of the second actuator, wherein the second actuator is coupled to the frame and to the second disc blade support (as shown in annotated Fig. A), and the second actuator is configured to drive the second disc blade support to pivot relative to the frame to control a second (yaw) angle between the second plurality of disc blades and the direction of travel of the tillage implement; and
a conduit (see annotated Fig. A) extending between a cap end of the first actuator and a cap end of the second actuator, wherein the conduit is configured to enable fluid flow between the first and second actuators; and
wherein the first actuator (57L) is configured to drive the first disc blade support to pivot in a first direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the first pivot point in response to extension of the rod of the first actuator, the first actuator is configured to drive the first disc blade support to pivot in a second direction (clockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the first pivot point, opposite the first direction, in response to retraction of the rod of the first actuator, the second actuator (57R) is configured to drive the second disc blade support to pivot in the second direction (clockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the second pivot point in response to extension of the rod of the second actuator, and the second actuator is configured to drive the second disc blade support to pivot in the first direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the second pivot point in response to retraction of the rod of the second actuator.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. US 9,370,137 Annotated Fig. 15.
Hennes does not explicitly state that the first and second disc blade supports are configured to pivot independently of one another, and Hennes shows a mechanical link (56F) between the first and second disc blade supports. However, Hennes recites: "The left and right front center gangs can be linked together by a mechanical link 56F to move in time with each other when adjusting an angle of the front gang bars 12G relative to the main frame 21F, 25F." (See Hennes, col. 7, lines 37-41.) That Hennes recites the blade supports "can" be linked together suggests an embodiment wherein the blade supports are not linked together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shown embodiment of Hennes without the mechanical link as suggested for independent control and/or variability of the first and second disc blade supports. Additionally, providing the shown embodiment of Hennes without the link as suggested is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., unlinked blade supports as suggested) for another (i.e., mechanically linked blade supports as shown by Hennes) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Hennes shows the first actuator (57L) and the second actuator (57R) being of substantially equal sizes (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A), but Hennes does not explicitly disclose a cross-sectional area of the rod of the first actuator being substantially equal to a cross-sectional area of the rod of the second actuator, and an internal cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the first actuator being substantially equal to an internal cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the second actuator. However, Maro teaches first and second actuators (including those of 1126 and/or 1128) that are commonly-sized (see para. 0099), wherein the actuators have substantially equal cross-sectional areas as claimed since the actuators are commonly-sized.
Maro is analogous because Maro discloses a towed agricultural implement having a hydraulic system for adjusting the position(s) of tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Hennes with the actuator sizing as taught by Maro in order to extend and contract the actuators the same amount as one another. (See Maro, para. 0099.)
Regarding claim 16, Hennes discloses the structure as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Hennes also discloses the first actuator (57L) and the second actuator (57R) being configured to drive the first disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A, above) and the second disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A, above) to pivot, respectively, such that the first angle and the second angle vary in response to receiving fluid at the first actuator (as 57L and 57R extend and retract). Additionally in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 10, Maro teaches the first and second actuators (including those of 1126 and/or 1128) configured to vary substantially equally in response to receiving fluid (see para. 0099).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17, Hennes discloses the first plurality of disc blades (supported by the first disc blade support; see annotated Fig. A, above) and the second plurality of disc blades (supported by the second disc blade support; see annotated Fig. A, above) being in the same row (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 10, Maro teaches the first and second actuators (including those of 1126 and/or 1128) being substantially identical to one another (as they are commonly-sized; see para. 0099).
Regarding claim 8, Hennes discloses the disc blade angle adjustment system further comprising:
a third actuator (see annotated Fig. A, above) comprising a cylinder, a piston disposed within the cylinder of the third actuator, and a single rod extending from the piston of the third actuator, wherein the third actuator is configured to couple to the frame of the tillage implement and to a third disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A), the third disc blade support is configured to pivotally couple to the frame at a third pivot point (see annotated Fig. A), the third disc blade support is configured to support a third plurality of disc blades (as shown in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A), and the third actuator is configured to drive the third disc blade support to pivot relative to the frame to control a third (yaw) angle between the third plurality of disc blades and the direction of travel of the tillage implement;
a fourth actuator (see annotated Fig. A) comprising a cylinder, a piston disposed within the cylinder of the fourth actuator, and a single rod extending from the piston of the fourth actuator, wherein the fourth actuator is configured to couple to the frame of the tillage implement and to a fourth disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A), the fourth disc blade support is configured to pivotally couple to the frame at a fourth pivot point (see annotated Fig. A), the fourth disc blade support is configured to support a fourth plurality of disc blades (as shown in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A), and the fourth actuator is configured to drive the fourth disc blade support to pivot relative to the frame to control a fourth angle (yaw) between the fourth plurality of disc blades and the direction of travel of the tillage implement; and
a second conduit (see annotated Fig. A) extending between a rod end of the third actuator and a rod end of the fourth actuator, wherein the second conduit is configured to enable fluid flow between the third and fourth actuators (as when fluid is held static or fluid flow is blocked);
wherein the first plurality of disc blades and the second plurality of disc blades are in a front row (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A), and the third plurality of disc blades and the fourth plurality of disc blades are in a rear row (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A); and
wherein the third actuator (see annotated Fig. A) is configured to drive the third disc blade support to pivot in the second direction (clockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the third pivot point in response to extension of the rod of the third actuator, the third actuator is configured to drive the third disc blade support to pivot in the first direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the third pivot point in response to retraction of the rod of the third actuator, the fourth actuator (see annotated Fig. A) is configured to drive the fourth disc blade support to pivot in the first direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the fourth pivot point in response to extension of the rod of the fourth actuator, and the fourth actuator is configured to drive the fourth disc blade support to pivot in the second direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A) about the fourth pivot point in response to retraction of the rod of the fourth actuator.
Additionally, Hennes teaches the first, second, third, and fourth disc blade supports being configured to pivot independently of one another (as shown attached independently with respective actuators), wherein the first and second disc blade supports are configured to pivot independently of one another as set forth in the modification made in relation to claim 1, above.
Hennes shows the third actuator (see annotated Fig. A) and the fourth actuator (see annotated Fig. A) being of substantially equal sizes (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. A), but Hennes does not explicitly disclose a cross-sectional area of the rod of the third actuator being substantially equal to a cross-sectional area of the rod of the fourth actuator, and an internal cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the third actuator being substantially equal to an internal cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the fourth actuator. However, Maro teaches third and fourth actuators (including others of 1126 and/or 1128) that are commonly-sized (see para. 0099), wherein the actuators have substantially equal cross-sectional areas as claimed since the actuators are commonly-sized.
Maro is analogous because Maro discloses a towed agricultural implement having a hydraulic system for adjusting the position(s) of tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Hennes with the actuator sizing as taught by Maro in order to extend and contract the actuators the same amount as one another. (See Maro, para. 0099.)
Regarding claim 19, Hennes discloses the additional structure as set forth above with respect to claim 8. Hennes also discloses the third actuator (see annotated Fig. A) and the fourth actuator (see annotated Fig. A) being configured to drive the third disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A) and the fourth disc blade support (see annotated Fig. A) to pivot, respectively, such that the third angle and the fourth angle vary in response to receiving fluid at the third actuator (as the actuators are in a parallel configuration). Additionally in view of the modification as made in relation to claim 16, Maro teaches third and fourth actuators (including others of 1126 and/or 1128) configured to vary substantially equally in response to receiving fluid (see para. 0099).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 in alternative, Hennes alternatively discloses a tillage implement, comprising:
a frame (see annotated Fig. B, below);
a first disc blade support (see annotated Fig. B) pivotally coupled to the frame at a first pivot point (see annotated Fig. B), wherein the first disc blade support is configured to support a first plurality of disc blades (as shown in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B);
a second disc blade support (see annotated Fig. B) pivotally coupled to the frame at a second pivot point (see annotated Fig. B), wherein the second disc blade support is configured to support a second plurality of disc blades (as shown in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B); and
a disc blade angle adjustment system, comprising:
a first actuator (see annotated Fig. B) comprising a cylinder, a piston disposed within the cylinder, and a single rod extending from the piston, wherein the first actuator is coupled to the frame and to the first disc blade support (as shown in annotated Fig. B), and the first actuator is configured to drive the first disc blade support to pivot relative to the frame to control a first (yaw) angle between the first plurality of disc blades and a direction of travel of the tillage implement;
a second actuator (see annotated Fig. B) comprising a cylinder, a piston disposed within the cylinder of the second actuator, and a single rod extending from the piston of the second actuator, wherein the second actuator is coupled to the frame and to the second disc blade support (as shown in annotated Fig. B), and the second actuator is configured to drive the second disc blade support to pivot relative to the frame to control a second (yaw) angle between the second plurality of disc blades and the direction of travel of the tillage implement; and
a conduit (see annotated Fig. B) extending between a cap end of the first actuator and a cap end of the second actuator, wherein the conduit is configured to enable fluid flow between the first and second actuators (as when fluid is held static or fluid flow is blocked); and
wherein the first actuator (see annotated Fig. B) is configured to drive the first disc blade support to pivot in a first direction (clockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B) about the first pivot point in response to extension of the rod of the first actuator, the first actuator is configured to drive the first disc blade support to pivot in a second direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B) about the first pivot point, opposite the first direction, in response to retraction of the rod of the first actuator, the second actuator (see annotated Fig. B) is configured to drive the second disc blade support to pivot in the second direction (counterclockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B) about the second pivot point in response to extension of the rod of the second actuator, and the second actuator is configured to drive the second disc blade support to pivot in the first direction (clockwise in Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B) about the second pivot point in response to retraction of the rod of the second actuator.
PNG
media_image2.png
680
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. US 9,370,137 Alternative Annotated Fig. 15.
Hennes shows the first actuator (see annotated Fig. B) and the second actuator (see annotated Fig. B) being of substantially equal sizes (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B), but Hennes does not explicitly disclose a cross-sectional area of the rod of the first actuator being substantially equal to a cross-sectional area of the rod of the second actuator, and an internal cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the first actuator being substantially equal to an internal cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the second actuator. However, Maro teaches first and second actuators (including those of 1126 and/or 1128) that are commonly-sized (see para. 0099), wherein the actuators have substantially equal cross-sectional areas as claimed since the actuators are commonly-sized.
Maro is analogous because Maro discloses a towed agricultural implement having a hydraulic system for adjusting the position(s) of tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Hennes with the actuator sizing as taught by Maro in order to extend and contract the actuators the same amount as one another. (See Maro, para. 0099.)
Regarding claim 16 in alternative, Hennes alternatively discloses the structure as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 10 in alternative. Hennes also discloses the first actuator (see annotated Fig. B) and the second actuator (see annotated Fig. B) being configured to drive the first disc blade support (see annotated Fig. B) and the second disc blade support (see annotated Fig. B) to pivot, respectively, such that the first angle and the second angle vary in response to receiving fluid at the first actuator (as the actuators extend and retract). Additionally in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 10, Maro teaches the first and second actuators (including those of 1126 and/or 1128) configured to vary substantially equally in response to receiving fluid (see para. 0099).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17 in alternative, Hennes alternatively discloses the first plurality of disc blades (supported by the first disc blade support; see annotated Fig. B, above) and the second plurality of disc blades (supported by the second disc blade support; see annotated Fig. B, above) being in the same row (see Fig. 15 and annotated Fig. B).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18 in alternative, Hennes discloses the frame comprising a wing section (including first 25) and a center section (including 21) pivotally coupled to one another (at 27), the first actuator (see annotated Fig. B, above) being coupled to the wing section (in order to pivot the first disc blade support), the first disc blade support (see annotated Fig. B) being pivotally coupled to the wing section (see Figs. 15 and annotated Fig. B; also, see Fig. 9, which shows similar structure wherein the wing section is delineated), the second actuator (see annotated Fig. B) being coupled to the center section (in order to pivot the second disc blade support), and the second disc blade support (in order to pivot the first disc blade support) being pivotally coupled to the center section (see Figs. 15 and annotated Fig. B; also, see Fig. 9, which shows similar structure wherein the center section is delineated).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, and 20 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 13 and 14 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but if similarly amended as claims 5 and 6 (or claim 4 with claims 5 and 6 depending therefrom), claims 13 and 14 will be objected to as explained above in the 'Claim Objections' section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. In particular, Sporrer et al. (US 11,064,643) discloses the structure of at least the independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 10, and 16) in a manner similar to Hennes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/3/22/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights