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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 229-234 and 236-263 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laperriere et al. (US 2013/0025031) in view of Weisman (US 5,332,760).
Regarding claim 229, Laperriere teaches sports helmets for protecting the heads of wearers (“a molded athletic gear component”) (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0002]). The helmets include an inner pad comprising a core of polymeric cellular material comprising pre-expanded polymeric microspheres which are then further expanded (“a precursor”) (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0008]; [0057]-[0064]). The core may include expanding the microspheres in combination with a polymeric foam material (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0039]; [0042]).
Laperriere is silent with respect to the polymeric cellular material having an elongation at break of at least 100%.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials included in the expandable material. MPEP 2112.01(I): Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433.
In the instant case, the expandable material appears to be the combination of a polyurethane with an expansion agent, which is preferably expandable microspheres such as those sold under the trade name Expancel (See PGPUB, Pg. 5, Paragraphs [0083] and [0086]). The content of the microspheres is in the range of at least 10% by weight of the expandable material (Pg. 5, Paragraph [0089]).
As discussed above, Laperriere teaches the polymeric cellular material comprising a foam in combination with Expancel microspheres (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0038]).
Laperriere is silent with respect to the foam being a polyurethane foam.
Weisman teaches a low-density polyurethane foam which has enhanced resilience and shock absorption properties (Col. 2, Lines 42-46). The foam includes 20% to 80% of microspheres, sold under the trade name of Expancel in order to provide the shock absorbing properties (Col. 5, Line 23-Col. 6, Line 13). Furthermore, the in situ implantation method, “the unexpanded microspheres are fed into a urethane foam-forming mixture and thoroughly intermingled and dispersed throughout the mixture by mixing blades or similar expedient. The unexpanded microspheres are subjected to the exothermic reaction which takes place in the liquid-forming reaction mixture (Col. 6, Line 67-Col. 7, Line 5). The reaction mixture with the high temperatures result in the expansion of the microspheres within the open-cells of the polyurethane foam (Col. 7, Lines 5-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the cellular polymeric material of Laperriere with the polyurethane foam, formed via the in situ method, having 20% to 80% Expancel microspheres in order to provide shock absorbing characteristics to the helmets as taught by Weisman. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the in situ method described above teaches forming a urethane foam-forming mixture which is further mixed with unexpanded microspheres which is considered as the “precursor” material requires by claim 229. Lastly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the overlap in materials for forming the cellular polymeric material and the expandable material would result in overlapping properties as well, including having an elongation at break of at least 100%.
Regarding the limitation of “the precursor expandable after molding into a component having an expanded three-dimensional configuration of expandable material having an elongation at break that is at least 100% and that is a scaled-up version of a three-dimensional configuration of the expandable material of the precursor by expanding all dimensions of the three-dimensional configuration of the expandable material of the precursor by the same proportion,” it is first noted that the claim is directed to a molded athletic gear component precursor. The above limitation describes an intended use for the precursor and the resulting product rather than the precursor material itself. As such, the final product of claim 229 is to be considered as the precursor material and not the resulting expanded component as described in the limitation above.
Concerning the teachings of Laperriere and Weisman, the combination teaches the core polymeric cellular material formed by the in situ process taught by Weisman as discussed above, which ultimately, teaches the final product of claim 229 as discussed above being the precursor material.
Regarding claim 230, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes an elongation at break of greater than 150%.
Regarding claim 231, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a resilience of at least 60%.
Regarding claim 232, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a resilience of at least 80%.
Regarding claim 233, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a tensile strength of at least 1 MPa.
Regarding claim 234, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a tensile strength of at least 2 MPa.
Regarding claim 236, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes an expansion temperature of at least 150°C.
Regarding claims 237-241, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. The limitations required by claims 237-241 are product-by-process limitations such that the limitation describes a method of forming the final product being a component comprising the expanded expandable material. MPEP 2113(I): "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. As noted above, the final product of claim 229 is the precursor material, which is taught by the combination of Laperriere and Weisman as discussed above.
Regarding claim 242, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the combination of Laperriere and Weisman teaches the core of the helmets as being formed from a polyurethane foam and Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 243, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 242. As discussed above, the Expancel microspheres are present in the range of 20% to 80%, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 244, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 242. As discussed above, the Expancel microspheres are present in the range of 20% to 80%, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 245, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 242. As discussed above, the core includes Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 246, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 242. As discussed above, the core includes polyurethane foams.
Regarding claim 247, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 242. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes the cellular polymeric material having a greater elongation at break than the Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 248, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 247. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes the cellular polymeric material being at least 200% of the elongation at break of the Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 249, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 247. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes the cellular polymeric material being at least 400% of the elongation at break of the Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 250, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 242. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a resilience of the cellular polymeric material being greater than the Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 251, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 247. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a tensile strength of the cellular polymeric material being greater than the Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 252, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. Weisman further teaches the expansion of the microspheres to 50 to 60 of their initial volume (Col. 5, Lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 253, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. Weisman further teaches the expansion of the microspheres to 50 to 60 of their initial volume (Col. 5, Lines 58-63).
Regarding claims 254-255, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the core is configured to have a shape which corresponds to the outer shell of the helmet (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0033]). The outer shell additionally protects various regions of a user’s head requiring different levels of protection, such as the crown region, a top region, a left side region, a right side region, a back region and an occipital region (“regions that differ in stiffness” & “first region, second region and the second region having a greater stiffness than the first region”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 256, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the core is configured to have a shape which corresponds to the outer shell of the helmet (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0033]). The outer shell additionally protects various regions of a user’s head requiring different levels of protection, such as the crown region, a top region, a left side region, a right side region, a back region and an occipital region (“the component comprises a plurality of portions that are at least one of curved and angular”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claims 257-258, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the core is configured to have a shape which corresponds to the outer shell of the helmet (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0033]). The outer shell additionally protects various regions of a user’s head requiring different levels of protection, such as the crown region, a top region, a left side region, a right side region, a back region and an occipital region (“the component comprises a predetermined arrangement of shaped elements that are made of the expandable material, intersect one another” & “the shaped elements are relief elements of a texture of the component”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 259, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the core is included in a helmet to be worn by a user and, as such, is configurable to be worn by a user.
Regarding claim 260, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 259. As discussed above, the core is included in a helmet to be worn by a user. Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are directed towards a precursor component which is configured to be worn by a user and not the article comprising the component. As such, the limitations are given patentable weight to the degree that they provide additional structural limitations to the component of claim 259. In the instant case, the limitations of claim 260 do not provide any further structural limitations to the component of claim 259.
Regarding claim 261, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 260. As discussed above, the core is included in a helmet to be worn by a user. Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are directed towards a precursor for a component which is configured to be worn by a user and not the article comprising the component. As such, the limitations are given patentable weight to the degree that they provide additional structural limitations to the component of claim 259. In the instant case, the limitations of claim 260 do not provide any further structural limitations to the component of claim 259.
Regarding claim 262, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the core is included in the core of a helmet to be worn by a user (“component is a pad”).
Regarding claim 263, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 229. As discussed above, the core is included in the core of a helmet to be worn by a user (“component is a cushion”).
Claims 264, 266-269 and 274-281 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laperriere et al. (US 2013/0025031) in view of Weisman (US 5,332,760).
Regarding claim 264, Laperriere teaches sports helmets for protecting the heads of wearers (“a component”) (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0002]). The helmets include an inner pad comprising a core of polymeric cellular material comprising expanded polymeric microspheres (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0008]). The core may include the expanded microspheres in combination with a polymeric foam material (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0039]; [0042]). Laperriere additionally teaches the method of forming the pads including forming pre-expanded microspheres and placing the pre-expanded microspheres into a mold so that they may further be expanded to their final size (“forming expandable material into an initial three-dimensional configuration; and causing expansion of the expandable material from the initial three-dimensional configuration to an expanded three-dimensional configuration that is a scaled-up version of the initial three-dimensional configuration”) (Pg. 4, Paragraphs [0057]-[0064]).
Laperriere is silent with respect to the polymeric cellular material having an elongation at break of at least 100%. However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials included in the expandable material. MPEP 2112.01(I): Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433. Specifically, the expandable material appears to be the combination of a polyurethane with an expansion agent, which is preferably expandable microspheres such as those sold under the trade name Expancel (See PGPUB, Pg. 5, Paragraphs [0083] and [0086]). The content of the microspheres is in the range of at least 10% by weight of the expandable material (Pg. 5, Paragraph [0089]).
As discussed above, Laperriere teaches the polymeric cellular material comprising a foam in combination with Expancel microspheres (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0038]).
Laperriere is silent with respect to the foam being a polyurethane foam.
Weisman teaches a low-density polyurethane foam which has enhanced resilience and shock absorption properties (Col. 2, Lines 42-46). The foam includes 20% to 80% of microspheres, sold under the trade name of Expancel in order to provide the shock absorbing properties (Col. 5, Line 23-Col. 6, Line 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the cellular polymeric material of Laperriere with the polyurethane foams having 20% to 80% Expancel microspheres in order to provide shock absorbing characteristics to the helmets as taught by Weisman. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the overlap in materials for forming the cellular polymeric material and the expandable material would result in overlapping properties as well, including having an elongation at break of at least 100%.
Furthermore, with respect to all dimensions of the expanded three-dimensional configuration of the expandable material are proportionally larger than corresponding dimensions of the initial three-dimensional configuration of the expandable material, it is noted that Lapierre teaches identical methods in combination with identical materials, as discussed above, such that the formation of the component includes molding and expanding a polymeric material with Expancel microspheres. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect for the methods to include expansion in all dimensions resulting in the dimensions being proportionally larger. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the expansion in all dimensions resulting in the dimensions being proportionally larger such that the combination of Laperriere and Weisman are directed towards components for sports equipment (i.e. helmets) in the same manner as applicant’s invention (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0002]-[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the expansion of the Expancel particles with the polymeric cellular material in order to form protective materials for sports such that both Laperriere and applicant’s inventions are directed towards the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 266, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes an elongation at break of greater than 150%.
Regarding claim 267, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a resilience of at least 60%.
Regarding claim 268, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the cellular polymeric materials and the expandable materials have overlapping materials and, thus overlapping properties. This includes a tensile strength of at least 1 MPa.
Regarding claims 269 and 272-273, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. Laperriere teaches the pre-expanded microspheres are placed into a mold for molding the core of the polymeric cellular material (“the expandable material is formed into the initial three-dimensional configuration using 3D printing, claim 269, in a 3D printed mold, claim 272, and is injection molded in the 3D printed mold, claim 273”) (Pg. 4, Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 274, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the combination of Laperriere and Weisman teaches the core of the helmets as being formed from a polyurethane foam and Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 275, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 274. As discussed above, the Expancel microspheres are present in the range of 20% to 80%, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 276, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 274. As discussed above, the Expancel microspheres are present in the range of 20% to 80%, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 277, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 274. As discussed above, the core includes Expancel microspheres.
Regarding claim 278, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 274. As discussed above, the core includes polyurethane foams.
Regarding claim 279, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the core is configured to have a shape which corresponds to the outer shell of the helmet (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0033]). The outer shell additionally protects various regions of a user’s head requiring different levels of protection, such as the crown region, a top region, a left side region, a right side region, a back region and an occipital region (“the component comprises a plurality of portions that are at least one of curved and angular”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 280, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the core is configured to have a shape which corresponds to the outer shell of the helmet (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0033]). The outer shell additionally protects various regions of a user’s head requiring different levels of protection, such as the crown region, a top region, a left side region, a right side region, a back region and an occipital region (“the component comprises a predetermined arrangement of shaped elements that are made of the expandable material, intersect one another” & “the shaped elements are relief elements of a texture of the component”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 281, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the core is included in a helmet to be worn by a user and, as such, is configurable to be worn by a user.
Regarding claim 282, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the core is included in the core of a helmet to be worn by a user (“component is a pad”).
Regarding claim 283, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264. As discussed above, the core is included in the core of a helmet to be worn by a user (“component is a cushion”).
Claims 269-271 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laperriere et al. (US 2013/0025031) in view of Weisman (US 5,332,760 as applied to claim 264 above, and further in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2015/0018136).
Regarding claims 269-271, Laperriere teaches the helmets as discussed above with respect to claim 264.
Laperriere is silent with respect to the helmets being formed such that the pre-expanded microspheres are formed into an initial three-dimensional configuration utilizing 3D printing.
Goldstein teaches a method of 3D printing a carbon fiber lacrosse head (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0024]). The methods include 3D printing the head, which may utilize a variety of materials from metals to thermoplastics, such that the 3D printing includes methods such as selective laser sintering and stereolithography (Pg. 1, Paragraphs [0041]-[0043]). These methods provide various advantages over conventional injection molding such as preventing weak weld point lines, loss in productivity and customization and reducing costs for expensive machinery (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0049]). Furthermore, these methods are not limited to producing lacrosse head and may be used to make other protective articles to be worn by a user (helmets, chest protectors, etc.) and may be further customizable to a user through the use of a 3D scanning of a portion of a player’s body (Pg. 7, Paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the pre-expanded microspheres of Laperriere into a shape utilizing 3D printing, such as selective laser sintering and stereolithography, rather than a mold, such that conventional injection molding techniques result in weak weld point lines along with these 3D printing methods preventing loss in productivity and customization and reduce costs for expensive machinery, as taught by Goldstein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 09/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claim 229 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On page 11, applicant argues that the amendments to claim 229 overcome the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection such that the claim is now directed to a precursor, characterized in terms of the final component.
The examiner concedes in that the amendment overcomes the rejection of 03/06/2025 such that the claim is now clearly directed to the precursor and the rejection is withdrawn.
However, the examiner notes that the amendment indicates that the claim is directed to a precursor and not the expanded version of the precursor. As such, any limitation concerning the expanded component is only given patentable weight to the extent that the precursor materials taught by the combination is capable of forming the expanded component.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, applicant argues that the amendment to claim 229 now requiring a moldable precursor component overcomes the teachings of Laperriere and Weisman such that neither reference discloses a precursor component. Instead, Laperriere teaches a pre-expanded material, then molding, then a covering being added. Weisman does not cure the deficiency of Laperriere. Applicant additionally argues that the method of claim 264 overcomes the art for identical reasons.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments.
Firstly, the examiner notes that the claim is now directed to only a precursor component which is capable of forming an expanded component. As such, the limitations concerning the expanded component and associated properties are given patentable weight to the extent that the precursor is capable of achieving the expanded component and associated properties. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any material taught in the prior art which is formed from substantially identical materials and may be used for identical purposes would also be capable of achieving the claimed expanded component and associated properties.
The examiner notes that the combination of Laperriere and Weisman teaches substantially identical materials and properties for the claimed precursor. Laperriere teaches the pre-expansion and then molding as argued by the applicant, however, the molding step is further following by heating the mixture causing the expansion of the microspheres to expand to their final size (Paragraph [0060]). As such, the pre-expanded microspheres would be considered the precursor and the final expansion would be considered the expanded component.
Additionally, Weisman teaches an in situ implantation method being “the unexpanded microspheres are fed into a urethane foam-forming mixture and thoroughly intermingled and dispersed throughout the mixture by mixing blades or similar expedient. The unexpanded microspheres are subjected to the exothermic reaction which takes place in the liquid-forming reaction mixture (Col. 6, Line 67-Col. 7, Line 5).” The reaction mixture with the high temperatures results in the expansion of the microspheres within the open-cells of the polyurethane foam (Col. 7, Lines 5-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the intermingling of the microspheres and the urethane mixture prior to the exothermic reaction would be considered the precursor and the expanded mixture would be the final component.
Therefore, the examiner contends that both Laperriere and Weisman teach the precursor as required, and argued, by claims 229 and 264.
The current rejection is made FINAL in view of the amendments to the claims.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783