DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 16 April 2026. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11-20, 244-248 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 12-14, 16-19 and newly added claims 244-248.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 248 and amended claim 12 (amended to introduce a new independent claim) are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Group I, claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 13-20, 244-247 drawn to a system for enclosing and separating one of a patient from personnel while the personnel perform a procedure on the patient, or a laboratory sample from a technician while studying the laboratory sample
Group II, claim(s) 12, drawn to a system comprising a barrier, scaffold and plurality of passages.
Group III, claim(s) 248, drawn to a system comprising a barrier, plurality of passages, instrument and a flange.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the same or corresponding technical features of “a barrier forming a three-dimensional (3D) structure to define and interior volume and an exterior space”, and “a plurality of passages extending through the barrier to provide access from the exterior space and into the interior volume”, these same or corresponding technical features are not special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Maloney (U.S. 8007351). Maloney discloses each of these technical features in Col 3, lines 50-57 as the following:
- a barrier forming a three-dimensional (3D) structure to define and interior volume and an exterior space disclosed as “the enclosure is intended…completely enclosed secure biological chemical barrier system”
- a plurality of passages extending through the barrier to provide access from the exterior space and into the interior volume is disclosed as “having biomedical ports”
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12 and 248 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the fluid from” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –the fluid movement from—
-Claim 2 recites “engages with” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –engage with—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 13-20, and 244-247 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites “mitigating…exterior space” in lines 6-7. It is unclear from this recitation what this limitation requires. Further clarification should be provided to define whether this is describing directing fluid movement from inside the system to the exterior space of the system, controlling fluid movement within the interior volume of the system, reduction of fluid movement within a portion of the system or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “the laboratory sample arranged in the interior volume” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 recites “a portion of the patient” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “a portion of the patient” originally referenced in claim 1, lines 12-13.
-Claim 6 recites “the exterior surface” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 13 recites “the interior surface” and “the exterior surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “mitigates…exterior space” in lines 9-12. It is unclear from this recitation what this limitation requires. Further clarification should be provided to define whether this is describing directing fluid movement from inside the system to the exterior space of the system, controlling fluid movement within the interior volume of the system, reduction of fluid movement within a portion of the system or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 19 recites “wherein a scaffold includes a support beam” in line 5. It is unclear whether the scaffold is part of the claimed system or not by this limitation. Should possibly read –wherein the system further comprises a scaffold, and wherein the scaffold includes a support beam—
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 244-247 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriek (U.S. 20080041399) in view of Potts (U.S. 5299582).
Regarding Claim 1, Kriek teaches a system for enclosing and separating one of a patient from personnel while the personnel perform a procedure on the patient [0037; “In order to perform a surgical procedure, the surgeon must also, of course, have access to the sterile operating enclosure”], or a laboratory sample from a technician while studying the laboratory sample, the system comprising (limitation not required by the system):
a barrier configured to form a three-dimensional (3D) structure to define an interior volume and an exterior space [Fig. 1, element 1 (enclosure)] and [0018]—describes the sterile environment within the enclosure, the interconnected region, and the external environment, and to mitigate fluid movement from the interior volume and into the exterior space thereby mitigating droplet, particulate, and aerosol movement in a flow path of the fluid from the interior volume and into the exterior space [0009]—includes description of fluid evaporation control inside the enclosure and [0072]—reference to the personnel providing fluids into and exiting the enclosure;
a plurality of passages extending through the barrier to provide access from the exterior space and into the interior volume to perform the procedure on the patient or perform a study on the laboratory sample arranged in the interior volume [Fig. 1, element 4 (entrance/exit ports)]; and
wherein the barrier is configured to be formed in the 3D structure to arrange a portion of the patient or a laboratory sample in the interior volume, and wherein the barrier is positioned external to the patient when the personnel perform the procedure on the patient [0037] and [Fig. 1, element 2 (patient)].
Kriek is silent on an instrument attachment coupled to the barrier and positioned above the plurality of passages, the instrument attachment configured to be removably coupled to an instrument. Potts teaches an instrument attachment coupled to the barrier and positioned above the plurality of passages, the instrument attachment configured to be removably coupled to an instrument [Fig. 1, elements 10 (second sealable aperture), 11 (instrument)] and [Col 4, lines 24-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and instrument attachment mechanism as taught by Potts to allow for use during a procedure as suggested by Kriek, as Kriek discusses maintaining a sterile environment for a procedure to be carried out [0002] with Potts because Potts teaches the redirection and collection of surgical fluids contained within the interior space [Col 4, lines 39-43].
Regarding Claim 2, Kriek teaches wherein a free end of the barrier includes a flange configured to extend along and engages with a portion of the patient or the laboratory sample to further enclose the patient or the laboratory sample or a structure [Fig. 10, element 32 (flange portion)] and [0083]—references the flange portion in relation to a peripheral enclosure (element 6) which in [0082] discusses the removal of patient organs by means of elements 6 and 32 which is interpreted to include engagement with a portion of a patient.
Regarding Claim 3, Kriek teaches wherein the flange includes a coupling layer that is configured to couple to the portion of the patient or the laboratory sample or the structure [0081]—discuses a joining area comprised of layer 31 and [0082]—where the joining laying includes an adhesive.
Regarding Claim 6, Kriek teaches further comprising a support structure that maintains at least a portion of the 3D structure [0010]—reference to the support frame; and
wherein the support structure includes a scaffold that is coupled to an interior volume of the barrier, coupled to the exterior surface of the barrier, or integrated within the barrier [Fig. 3c, elements 15, 15a, 15b (support rods)] and [0060]—describing the support rods provided on the enclosure, positioned…from longitudinal center line and extending between side portions.
Regarding Claim 14, Kriek teaches wherein the barrier includes: a central region; [0062]—reference to a flexible membrane, a first region with a first free end extending from the central region, [Fig. 3D, element 10 (upper portion)] the first region having a first edge; [0010]—introduces the edges of the membrane and outside and inside surfaces of the membrane, and a second region with a second free end extending from the central region, , [Fig. 3D, element 12 (side portion)] the second region having a second edge, [0010] and wherein the first edge of the first region is configured to be coupled to the second edge of the second region to join the first region to the second region, [Fig. 3D, element 17 (attachment region)] and wherein coupling of the first edge to the second edge provides an adjoined edge of the barrier that mitigates fluid movement from the interior volume and into the exterior space along the adjoined edge thereby mitigating droplet, particulate, and aerosol movement from the interior volume and interior the exterior space along the adjoined edge [Fig. 3D, element 16 (peripheral attachment)] and [0009]—which describes controlling fluid evaporation which would encompass droplet, particulate and aerosol movement about the enclosure.
Regarding Claim 15, Kriek teaches wherein the first edge of the first region includes a strip that extends along a portion of the first edge [0019]—discloses an adhesive provided on the end wall member (interpreted to be the upper portion/first region).
Regarding Claim 16, Kriek teaches wherein the strip includes an adhesive layer configured to be secured to a surface of the second region [0019].
Regarding Claim 17, Kriek teaches wherein the strip is removably coupled to a surface of the second region [0062]—reference to the attachment means as intermittent which is interpreted to include removal of the attachment.
Regarding Claim 244, Kriek teaches wherein the 3D structure has a frustoconical shape, a pyramidal shape, or a cylindrical shape [Fig. 2A]—depicting a pyramidal shape.
Regarding Claim 245, Kriek is silent on further comprising a weight coupled to the barrier, the weight having a ring shape. Potts teaches further comprising a weight coupled to the barrier, the weight having a ring shape [Fig. 1, element 6 (top)]—depicted as a ring shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the weighted structure as a ring as taught by Potts to allow for controlled access for use during a procedure as suggested by Kriek, as Kriek discusses gaining access to the interior of the space via an access port which is depicted as a ring [0073] with Potts because Potts teaches the structural support mechanisms designed specifically for transurethral prostatectomies [Col 6, lines 26-28].
Regarding Claim 246, Kriek is silent on wherein the barrier defines a first end and a second end opposite the first end; wherein the instrument attachment is coupled to the barrier at the first end; and wherein the system further comprises a tab coupled to the barrier at the second end, the tab including a coupling layer to couple the tab to the patient, the sample, or a structure; and wherein when the tab is coupled to the patient, the sample, or the structure, a terminal end of the barrier is folded over itself and is positioned within the interior volume. Potts teaches wherein the barrier defines a first end and a second end opposite the first end, See annotated Fig. 2 below;
wherein the instrument attachment is coupled to the barrier at the first end, See annotated Fig. 2 below; and
wherein the system further comprises a tab coupled to the barrier at the second end, the tab including a coupling layer to couple the tab to the patient, the sample, or a structure [Col 6, line 42-46]; and
wherein when the tab is coupled to the patient, the sample, or the structure, a terminal end of the barrier is folded over itself and is positioned within the interior volume [Col 6, lines 46-49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tabs and portions of the structure as taught by Potts to couple the structure to a patient as suggested by Kriek, as Kriek discusses attachment regions sealed by adhesives [0079] with Potts because Potts teaches providing a liquid impermeable seal around the entire apparatus [Col 6, lines 17-22].
PNG
media_image1.png
534
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 247, Kriek teaches wherein the barrier defines a first end and a second end opposite the first end, see annotated Fig. 10;
wherein the system further comprises a flange coupled to the barrier at the second end [Fig. 10, element 32 (flange portion)] and [0083]—references the flange portion in relation to a peripheral enclosure (element 6) which in [0082] discusses the removal of patient organs by means of elements 6 and 32 which is interpreted to include engagement with a portion of a patient, the flange defining a terminal end of the barrier; and
wherein the flange includes a coupling layer to couple the flange to the patient, the sample, or a structure [Fig. 10, elements 30, 31 and 32 (flange, protective, and sterilising layers]; and
wherein the flange includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion extending into the interior volume of the 3D structure, the second portion extending away from the 3D structure within the exterior space [Fig. 10, elements 32 and 30]—depicting 32 extending into the interior volume and 30 extending away from the structure within the exterior space.
Kriek is silent on wherein the instrument attachment is coupled to the barrier at the first end. Potts teaches wherein the instrument attachment is coupled to the barrier at the first end, see annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
346
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
534
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flange of the structure as taught by Potts to allow for access and use of instruments during a procedure as suggested by Kriek, as Kriek discusses joining sterile environments using the flange [0019] with Potts because Potts teaches accommodating surgical equipment [Col 5, lines 53-59].
Claim(s) 8, 11, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriek (U.S. 20080041399) in view of Potts (U.S. 5299582) and in further view of Petersen (U.S. 20200179219).
Regarding Claim 8, Kriek teaches further comprising a scaffold coupled to the barrier that maintains at least a portion of the 3D structure, the scaffold including a plurality of support beams Fig. 3c, elements 15, 15a, 15b (support rods)] and [0060];
Kriek and Potts are silent on wherein a first support beam of the plurality of support beams is curved; wherein a second support beam of the plurality of support beams is curved; wherein the first support beam and the second support beam are separated along and coaxially positioned relative to an axial axis of the 3D structure; and wherein the axial axis intersects the instrument attachment.
Petersen teaches wherein a first support beam of the plurality of support beams is curved [Fig. 6, element 404 (arch)]—depicts four arches spanning the longitudinal axis of the device;
wherein a second support beam of the plurality of support beams is curved [Fig. 6, element 404 (arch)]—depicts four arches spanning the longitudinal axis of the device;
wherein the first support beam and the second support beam are separated along and coaxially positioned relative to an axial axis of the 3D structure [Fig. 6, element 406 (rods)]—where rods connect the four arches along a longitudinal axis; and
wherein the axial axis intersects the instrument attachment [0068]—references sealable ports along the flexible cover which spans the axial axis and longitudinal axis of the support beams and rods (arches and rods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide rods and arch structures as taught by Petersen to provide additional structural support as suggested by Kriek, and Potts as Kriek discusses defining a support frame for the enclosure [Abstract] and Potts which discloses the use of an overhead support rod that supports the entire structure [Col 1, lines 10-13] with Petersen because Petersen teaches the use of these structures to support the flexible cover [0009].
Regarding Claim 11, Kriek and Potts are silent on wherein a third support beam of the plurality of support beams is coupled to the first support beam and the second support beam. Petersen teaches wherein a third support beam of the plurality of support beams is coupled to the first support beam and the second support beam [Fig. 6, element 404 (arch)]—depicts four arches spanning the longitudinal axis of the device where all support beams are coupled together via [Fig. 6, element 406 (rods)]—where rods connect the four arches along a longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect support structure together as taught by Petersen to provide additional structural support as suggested by Kriek, and Potts as Kriek discusses maintaining the structure of the enclosure [0060] and Potts which discloses the use of an overhead support rod that supports the entire structure [Col 1, lines 10-13] with Petersen because Petersen teaches the details of the coupling means for neighboring segments [0053].
Regarding Claim 13, Kriek and Potts are silent on further comprising a sleeve coupled to at least one of the interior surface or the exterior surface of the barrier, the sleeve being configured to receive a support beam. Petersen teaches further comprising a sleeve coupled to at least one of the interior surface or the exterior surface of the barrier, the sleeve being configured to receive a support beam [Fig. 5, element 410 (flexible cover)] and [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sleeve as taught by Petersen to maintain environmental conditions as suggested by Kriek, and Potts as Kriek discusses maintaining the gas inside at pressure above atmospheric [0056] and Potts which discloses isolating personnel from bodily fluids contained within the device [Col 1, lines 13-30] with Petersen because Petersen teaches maintaining negative pressure within the sleeve to prevent collapsing of the structure [0095].
Regarding Claim 18, Kriek and Potts are silent on wherein the strip includes at least one of a hook and a loop fastener, and the surface of the second region includes the other of the at least one of the hook and the loop fastener. Petersen teaches wherein the strip includes at least one of a hook and a loop fastener, and the surface of the second region includes the other of the at least one of the hook and the loop fastener [0069]—flexible cover includes coupling mechanisms such as Velcro.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Velcro to secure portions of the structure together as taught by Petersen to allow for deconstruction of the structure by means of folding and collapsing by Kriek, and Potts, as Kriek discusses the collapsible nature of the structure [0013] and Potts which discloses the use of a hook to support components of the system [Col 4, lines 66-68] with Petersen because Petersen teaches quickly undoing the fastening means to remove the cover from the frame [0069].
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriek (U.S. 20080041399) in view of Potts (U.S. 5299582) in further view of Petersen (U.S. 20200179219) and in even further view of Hardin (U.S. 9038214).
Regarding Claim 19, Kriek, Potts and Petersen are silent on wherein the first edge of the first region includes a first sleeve that extends along a portion of the first edge, and wherein the second edge of the second region includes a second sleeve that extends along a portion of the second edge, and wherein a scaffold includes a support beam that is received through the first sleeve and through the second sleeve to couple the first region to the second region. Hardin teaches wherein the first edge of the first region includes a first sleeve that extends along a portion of the first edge, and wherein the second edge of the second region includes a second sleeve that extends along a portion of the second edge, [Fig. 15, elements 418 (first sleeve), 420 (second sleeve)] and wherein a scaffold includes a support beam that is received through the first sleeve and through the second sleeve to couple the first region to the second region [Fig. 15, element 436, 438 (grommet-reinforced aperture)] and [Col 14, lines 8-14; “grommet-reinforced aperture…coupled to first and second end sleeves”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two sleeves on opposing surfaces of the support structure as taught by Hardin to establish and secure a support member to the structure as suggested by Kriek, Potts, and Petersen as Kriek discusses mounting support members to the flexible membrane and supporting frame [0010] and Potts which discloses the use of two plastic sheets [Col 6, lines 28-34] and Petersen which discloses the use of sleeves to reduce movement of support rods [0057] with Hardin because Hardin teaches the sleeves allowing for expansion and collapse of the structure [Col 13, lines 15-17].
Regarding Claim 20, Kriek, Potts and Petersen are silent on wherein the first sleeve is positioned above the second sleeve. Hardin teaches wherein the first sleeve is positioned above the second sleeve [Fig. 15, elements 418 (first sleeve), 420 (second sleeve)] and [Fig. 9]—reference to the gurney being positioned to a lifted configuration where the first sleeve would be located above the second sleeve in the inclined position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two sleeves with one sleeve above the other as taught by Hardin to establish and secure a support member to the structure as suggested by Kriek, Potts, and Petersen as Kriek discusses mounting support members to the flexible membrane and supporting frame [0010] and Potts which discloses two sheets having coinciding corners [Col 6, lines 38-40] and Petersen which discloses the use of sleeves to reduce movement of support rods [0057] with Hardin because Hardin teaches the sleeves allowing for expansion and collapse of the structure [Col 13, lines 15-17].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 with respect to the abstract, specification and drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments however, new objections are presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered however; new rejections are presented in light of the amendments. Regarding claim 1, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the recitation “mitigate fluid…exterior space”, the applicant contends that the language mentions one direction of fluid movement from the interior volume and into the exterior space. The examiner notes that the recited limitation does not include any mention of fluid movement direction. A flow path of the fluid is recited however, it still remains somewhat unclear whether this limitation requires fluid movement, whether it requires a direction of fluid movement, and what specifically the requirement is in regards to a direction/path and whether the requirement also requires the flow path to be from one structural entity to another. Further, if a flow path is being designated from the interior volume and into the exterior space, the limitation lacks clarify as to whether a flow from the interior to the exterior is required. The recitation includes terms that involve mitigating droplet, particulate and aerosol movement, therefore it remains unclear whether flow of fluid movement is or is not required by the limitation. In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection for claims 1, and 14 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 16 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 16 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented in light of the amendments under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-3, 6, 14-17, 244-247 citing Kriek in view of Potts, claims 8, 11, 13, 18 citing Kriek in view of Potts and in further view of Petersen, and claims 19 and 20 citing Kriek in view of Potts, in further view of Petersen and in even further view of Hardin. Claim 12 was subject to restriction since the previously dependent claim was amended and re-presented in independent form.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights