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 .
Reopening Prosecution
In view of the Appeal Brief filed 11/13/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED in view of the combination of previous DE 19501804 with new reference US 5,618,388, with evidence by US 6375814.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office Action is a non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoeller et al (DE 19501804, machine translation cited below) in view of Seeser et al (US 5,618,388), with evidence by De Bosscher et al (US 6,375,814).
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 11-12, Zoeller discloses a method for coating lenses comprising a device for coating two lenses (or more) by sputtering (Abstract; para 0006 and 0011-0012), wherein figs. 1-2 depict two lenses [3],[3’] are held on a carrier [8], each lens [3],[3’] being rotatable on the carrier [8] around an axis of rotation (represented via shafts [10],[10’]) which intersects the two lenses [3],[3’], the carrier [8] “remains in this position until the desired coating process is completed” from a pair of rectangular targets [6],[7] (e.g. carrier [8] is stationary relative to the pair of rectangular targets [6],[7] until sputter coating is complete) (para 0007 and 0010-0014), wherein fig. 1 shows a magnetron for each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] generates a race-track shaped magnetic field; thus since the carrier [8] is stationary during the desired coating process (i.e. sputter coating) from the rectangular targets [6],[7], each lens [3],[3’] is also stationary relative to the elongated targets [6],[7] while being rotated about the axis of rotation [10],[10’]. Figs. 1-2 further depict the two lenses [3],[3’] arranged at a position that is offset along a longitudinal extension of the elongated targets [6],[7] such that each lens [3],[3’] is in a middle region (i.e. first region) of material removal from each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] and an end region (i.e. second region) of material removal from each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] (para 0010-0012 and 0014-0015).
However Zoeller is limited in that each rectangular target being tubular instead is not specifically suggested.
Seeser teaches in figs. 1-2, 4-5, and 19-20 rectangular magnetron devices [30] each having a rectangular target [26],[27] (in figs. 1-2 and 19-20) and [34] (in figs. 4-5) with a “rectangular racetrack configuration” for coating via sputter deposition onto substrates [15] such lenses (col. 7, lines 28-65; col. 31, lines 30-36; col. 32, lines 1-10), similar to the rectangular targets [6],[7] of Zoeller. Seeser further teaches in figs. 29-30 a rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] with a “tubular rotating target” being interchangeable for the rectangular magnetron devices [30] with the rectangular target [34] shown in figs. 1-2, 4-5, and 19-20 (col. 3, lines 62-67; col. 5, lines 44-46; col. 22, lines 31-67; col. 23, lines 1-7), wherein the rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] has a “stationary linear magnet assembly” [183] which defines a “race-track shaped magnetic field” (col. 22, lines 45-56); the race-track shaped magnetic field of the stationary linear magnet assembly [183] is similar to the race-track shaped magnetic field of Zoeller, as evidenced by De Bosscher’s fig. 11a showing “a conventional elongate race-track” shaped magnetic field [59] (such as the race-track shaped magnetic field of Seeser), fig. 11b showing an erosion profile of a “rotating cathode magnetron” (i.e. tubular rotating target) [4] from the race-track shaped magnetic field, and fig. 11c showing a deposition layer thickness on a substrate (i.e. lens) [12] from the race-track shaped magnetic field (De Bosscher: Abstract; col. 10, lines 26-41). Seeser’s race-track shaped magnetic field also results in first and second regions of erosion of target material from the tubular rotating target, as also evidenced by De Bosscher’s figs. 11a-b showing the conventional elongate race-track shaped magnetic field (i.e. Seeser’s race-track shaped magnetic field) [59] produces during coating a rate profile as a function of axial position in a longitudinal direction of the tubular rotating target [4], the rate profile comprising the first region of erosion of material (i.e. rate of removal) at a middle region which is at least essentially uniform (i.e. homogenous) in a longitudinal extension of the tubular rotating target [4] at which the rate of removal of the first region appears to vary by less than 5%, and the second region of erosion of material (i.e. rate of removal) at an end region from which is non-uniform (i.e. inhomogeneous) in the longitudinal extension (De Bosscher’s: Abstract; col. 10, lines 26-41). Figs. 19-20 also show that the lenses [15] are configured (via “system computer”) to be stationary relative to the rectangular target [26],[27] or tubular rotating target while rotated about an axis of rotation (col. 18, lines 13-64). Seeser cites the advantage of the tubular rotating target of the rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] as reducing target poisoning, enhanced source stability, and increased power density (col. 22, lines 55-60).
Since Seeser recognizes the similarities of rectangular targets and tubular rotating targets for sputter depositing onto lenses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the rectangular targets of Zoeller with the tubular rotating targets of Seeser as it is merely the selection of functionally similar targets recognized in the prior art for sputter depositing onto lenses, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interchange each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] of Zoeller with the tubular rotating target of Seeser to gain the advantages of reducing target poisoning, enhanced source stability, and increased power density.
In summary, the combination of references Zoeller and Seeser with evidence by De Bosscher has: Zoeller teaching in figs. 1-2 the axis of rotation [10],[10’] of each of the two lenses [3],[3’] are arranged in a vicinity of a transition from the middle region (i.e. first region) of rate of removal from each of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] and the end region (i.e. second region) of rate of removal from each of the tubular rotating targets [6],[7] (para 0010-0012 and 0014-0015); and Seeser, with evidence by De Bosscher, teaching the first region of rate of removal at the middle region (of Zoeller) which is at least essentially uniform (i.e. homogenous) in a longitudinal extension of the tubular rotating target [4] (as shown in De Bosscher’s fig. 11b) at which the rate of removal of the first region appears to vary by less than 5%, and the second region of rate of removal at the end region (of Zoeller) from which is non-uniform (i.e. inhomogeneous) in the longitudinal extension of the tubular rotating target [4] (as shown in De Bosscher’s fig. 11b) (Abstract; col. 8, lines 19-6; col. 9, lines 1-7). Thus the combination of Zoeller and Seeser, with evidence by De Bosscher, teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that each axis of rotation [10],[10’] of each of the two lenses [3],[3’] is located in the claimed “vicinity of a transition” from the first region to the second region. The cropped figures below of Zoeller’s fig. 1 and De Bosscher’s figs. 11a-b serve to clarify how each axis of rotation [10],[10’] is in the vicinity of the transition from the first region to the second region.
PNG
media_image1.png
669
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3 and 5, modified Zoeller further depicts in fig. 1 the two lenses [3],[3’] positioned on the carrier [8] so as to be located over the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] both off-center and symmetrical relative to the longitudinal extension (para 0010-0014).
With respect to claim 6, modified Zoeller further depicts in fig. 1 the two lenses [3],[3’] positioned on the carrier [8] over opposite ends of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7].
With respect to claim 13, modified Zoeller further depicts in figs. 1-2 each lens [3],[3’] being rotatable on the carrier [8] via motor (i.e. rotary drive) [9],[9’] engaged with the carrier [8], wherein fig. 2 depicts the carrier [8] (and transmission for moving in directions of arrows [A],[B]) being coupled with the rotary drive [9],[9’] on insertion of the carrier [8] into the device for enabling rotation of the two lenses [3],[3’] within the carrier [8] when the carrier [8] is in the device (para 0010-0015); it has been held that automating a manual activity which accomplishes the same result (e.g. carrier [8] is manually or automatically coupled with the device when inserted into said device) is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPE 2144.04, III).
With respect to claim 14, modified Zoeller further depicts in figs. 1-2 the carrier [8] holds the two lenses [3],[3’] with at least one of a stationary center of gravity and in a centrically rotatable manner (para 0012-0013 and 0015).
With respect to claim 15, modified Zoeller further depicts in figs. 1-2 the carrier [8] positioning the two lenses [3],[3’] so that an axis intersects with both a center axis of each of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] (represented approximate to point [a]) and a surface plane of each of the tubular rotating targets [6],[7] (represented approximate to arrow [g]) (para 0012).
With respect to claim 22, the combination of references Zoeller and Seeser with evidence by De Bosscher has: Zoeller showing in fig. 1 that each lens [3],[3’] is positioned transversely offset relative to each of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] such that each lens [3],[3’] is approximately split with being in the first and second regions (i.e. middle and end regions) and each axis (i.e. axis of rotation) [10],[10’] is between then first and second region; De Bosscher teaches in fig. 11a-b a transition region between the end and middle regions that has a rate of removal that varies by at least 10% via “peaks” or “very steep walls” in the second region (col. 10, lines 26-41). Thus the combination of references reasonably suggests the axis of rotation [10],[10’] of each lens [3],[3] (of Zoeller) would be positioned at least substantially in the transition region (shown by De Bosscher).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoeller et al (DE 19501804, machine translation cited below) and Seeser et al (US 5,618,388) with evidence by De Bosscher et al (US 6,375,814) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lehan et al (US Patent No. 5,814,195).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Zoeller and Seeser with evidence by De Bosscher is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that while Zoeller teaches a voltage or power source to the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] arranged parallel is an AC power source with a medium-frequency (para 0012), the rectangular targets [6],[7] operating alternatingly between cathode and anode is not specifically suggested.
Lehan teaches in figs. 2-3 a device for sputtering comprising a parallel pair of either rectangular or cylindrical (i.e. tubular) targets attached to an AC power source (abstract; col. 2, lines 66-67; col. 3, lines 1-2), with fig. 2 depicting the parallel pair of rectangular targets [20],[22] (col. 1, lines 41-54), similar to the pair in Zoeller, and fig. 3 depicting the parallel pair of tubular rotating targets [64],[65] (col. 3, lines 53-61), similar to the tubular rotating target of Seeser. Lehan further teaches that the AC power source alternates to each tubular rotating target between cathode and anode to help discharge a stored charge resulting from redeposited material in addition to cleaning of the rectangular or tubular rotating targets (col. 1, lines 41-65; col. 2, lines 6-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the AC power source of the combination of references alternates the tubular rotating targets between cathode and anode as taught by Lehan to gain the advantages of discharging stored charges and cleaning of the tubular rotating targets.
With respect to claim 9, modified Zoeller further discloses that additional lenses (such as four or more) instead of the two lenses [3],[3’] are positioned over each of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] by extending a length of each of the tubular rotating targets [6],[7] (para 0014), such as how fig. 1 depicts the at least two lenses [3’],[3’] (and thus the four or more lenses) are arranged linearly over each of the tubular rotating targets [6],[7].
With respect to claim 10, modified Zoeller further depicts in fig. 2 axes [10],[10’] (from fig. 1) of the two lenses [3],[3’] run transversely to a common plane of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7].
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoeller et al (DE 19501804, machine translation cited below) in view of Seeser et al (US 5,618,388) and Schrader (US 3,656,454).
With respect to claim 16, Zoeller discloses a method for coating lenses comprising process chamber (i.e. coating device) for coating lenses by sputtering (Abstract; para 0006-0007), wherein figs. 1-2 depict two lenses [3],[3’] mounted on a carrier [8] in a manner enabling each lens [3],[3’] to be rotatable (via rotary coupling [13],[13’] within the carrier [8]) around a respective axis of rotation (represented via shafts [10],[10’]) which intersects a respective one of the two lenses [3],[3’] (para 0010-0014). Zoeller further discloses: figs. 1-2 depict the carrier [8] with the two lenses [3],[3’] in the coating device having rectangular targets [6],[7] and a drive unit for rotating the two lenses [3],[3’] via the rotary coupling [13],[13’] (para 0007, 0012, and 0020), thus the drive unit creates a drive connection to the rotary coupling [13],[13’] for enabling rotation of the two lenses [3],[3’] within the carrier [8]; producing the coating by sputtering of material from the rectangular targets [6],[7] each having a magnetron (para 0012), wherein figs. 1-2 depict the rectangular targets [6],[7] are located such that the two lenses [3],[3’] are positioned transversely offset relative a longitudinal axis of each of the rectangular targets [6],[7]; the carrier [8] with the two lenses [3],[3’] is “ejected from the process chamber” after the coating (e.g. the carrier [8] is removed from the coating device after the two lenses [3],[3’] have been coated) (para 0013). Since Zoeller teaches the carrier [8] with the two lenses [3],[3’] is “ejected” (i.e. removed) from the coating device (including the drive connection of the coating device) after the coating (para 0012), vice versa the carrier [8] must then be removably inserted into the coating device for the coating to then allow for the carrier [8] to be “ejected” and only create the drive connection in the coating device.
However Zoeller is limited in that each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] being tubular instead is not specifically suggested.
Seeser teaches in figs. 1-2, 4-5, and 19-20 rectangular magnetron devices [30] each having a rectangular target [26],[27] (in figs. 1-2 and 19-20) and [34] (in figs. 4-5) with a “rectangular racetrack configuration” for coating via sputter deposition onto substrates [15] such as lenses (col. 7, lines 28-65; col. 31, lines 30-36; col. 32, lines 1-10), similar to the rectangular targets [6],[7] of Zoeller. Seeser further teaches in figs. 29-30 a rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] with a “tubular rotating target” being interchangeable for the rectangular magnetron devices [30] with the rectangular target [34] shown in figs. 1-2, 4-5, and 19-20 (col. 3, lines 62-67; col. 5, lines 44-46; col. 22, lines 31-67; col. 23, lines 1-7), wherein the rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] has a “stationary linear magnet assembly” [183] which defines a “race-track shaped magnetic field” (col. 22, lines 45-56), also similar to a race-track for each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] of Zoeller. Figs. 19-20 also show that the lenses [15] are configured (via “system computer”) to be stationary relative to the rectangular target [26],[27] or tubular rotating target while rotated about an axis of rotation (col. 18, lines 13-64). Seeser cites the advantage of the tubular rotating target of the rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] as reducing target poisoning, enhanced source stability, and increased power density (col. 22, lines 55-60)
Since Seeser recognizes the similarities of rectangular targets and tubular rotating targets for sputter depositing onto lenses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the rectangular targets of Zoeller with the tubular rotating targets of Seeser as it is merely the selection of functionally similar targets recognized in the prior art for sputter depositing onto lenses, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interchange each of the rectangular targets [6],[7] of Zoeller with the tubular rotating target of Seeser to gain the advantages of reducing target poisoning, enhanced source stability, and increased power density.
However the combination of references Zoeller and Seeser is further limited in that while the carrier [8] is attached to the drive unit for rotation of the two lenses [3],[3’] as shown in figs. 1-2 (para 0012-0013), the drive unit specifically being in the coating device is not suggested.
Schrader teaches in figs. 1-4 a method comprising a vacuum coating apparatus comprising “carts” [19],[21] each having substrate holder (i.e. carriers) [13] being moved along a horizontal direction to a coating chamber [11] containing a vapor or ion source [15] (Abstract; col. 1, lines 60-71; col. 3, lines 55-64); the vapor or ion source [15] is taught to be a sputter source (col. 2, lines 6-8), similar to Zoeller; each carrier [13] supports substrates that are lenses (col. 1, lines 7-15; col. 3, lines 4-11), also similar to Zoeller. Schrader further teaches in figs. 1-4 each carrier [13] on the carts [19],[21] is connected and disconnected to actuators [106],[107] in the vacuum coating apparatus for moving the carts [13] (col. 4, lines 6-11), in addition to figs. 2-3 showing each carrier [13] being connected and disconnected to an “armature” (i.e. drive) [97] in the coating chamber [11] for rotating the substrates (col. 3, lines 4-34); thus Schrader teaches the method concept of: creating a drive connection between each carrier [13] (which each includes the rotary coupling [13],[13’] from Zoeller that forms a first part) upon connecting with the drive [97] (that forms a second part in the coating chamber [11]), and disconnects the drive connection when the carrier [13] is disconnected from the drive [97].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the method concept of Schrader for creating and disconnecting the drive connection of the combination of references to yield the predictable result of rotating the two lenses during coating. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to incorporate the method concept of Schrader for creating and disconnecting the drive connection of the combination of references since the combination of references fails to specify a location of the drive that creates the drive connection, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the combination since Schrader has shown a method for moving and rotating lenses during sputtering that requires a drive connection that is formed only when in the coating chamber [11] and disconnected when outside the coating chamber [11].
With respect to claims 17 and 18, modified Zoeller further discloses the carrier [8] (with the two lenses [3],[3’]) “remains in this position until the desired coating process is completed” (e.g. carrier [8] and the two lenses [3],[3’] are stationary relative to the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] until coating is complete) (para 0012-0013); thus the respective axes of rotation of the two lenses [3],[3’] is held stationary relative to longitudinal axes of the tubular rotating targets [6],[7] during sputtering.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoeller et al (DE 19501804, machine translation cited below), Seeser et al (US 5,618,388), and Schrader (US 3,656,454), with evidence by De Bosscher et al (US 6,375,814).
With respect to claims 19 and 20, the combination of references Zoeller, Seeser, and Schrader is cited as discussed for claim 16. Seeser further teaches the rotating cylindrical target magnetron [181] has a “stationary linear magnet assembly” [183] which defines a “race-track shaped magnetic field” (col. 22, lines 45-56); the race-track shaped magnetic field of the stationary linear magnet assembly [183] is similar to the race-track shaped magnetic field of Zoeller, as evidenced by De Bosscher’s fig. 11a showing “a conventional elongate race-track” shaped magnetic field [59] (such as the race-track shaped magnetic field of Seeser), fig. 11b showing an erosion profile of a “rotating cathode magnetron” (i.e. tubular rotating target) [4] from the race-track shaped magnetic field, and fig. 11c showing a deposition layer thickness on a substrate (i.e. lens) [12] from the race-track shaped magnetic field (De Bosscher: Abstract; col. 10, lines 26-41). Seeser’s race-track shaped magnetic field also results in first and second regions of erosion of target material from the tubular rotating target, as also evidenced by De Bosscher’s figs. 11a-b showing the conventional elongate race-track shaped magnetic field (i.e. Seeser’s race-track shaped magnetic field) [59] produces during coating a rate profile as a function of axial position in a longitudinal direction of the tubular rotating target [4], the rate profile comprising the first region of erosion of material (i.e. rate of removal) at a middle region which is at least essentially uniform (i.e. homogenous) in a longitudinal extension of the tubular rotating target [4] at which the rate of removal of the first region appears to vary by less than 5%, and the second region of erosion of material (i.e. rate of removal) at an end region from which is non-uniform (i.e. inhomogeneous) in the longitudinal extension (De Bosscher’s: Abstract; col. 10, lines 26-41).
In summary, the combination of references Zoeller, Seeser, and Schrader with evidence by De Bosscher has: Zoeller teaching in figs. 1-2 the axis of rotation [10],[10’] of each of the two lenses [3],[3’] are arranged in a vicinity of a transition from the middle region (i.e. first region) of rate of removal from each of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] and the end region (i.e. second region) of rate of removal from each of the tubular rotating targets [6],[7] (para 0010-0012 and 0014-0015); and Seeser, with evidence by De Bosscher, teaching the first region of rate of removal at the middle region (of Zoeller) which is at least essentially uniform (i.e. homogenous) in a longitudinal extension of the tubular rotating target [4] (as shown in De Bosscher’s fig. 11b) at which the rate of removal of the first region appears to vary by less than 5%, and the second region of rate of removal at the end region (of Zoeller) from which is non-uniform (i.e. inhomogeneous) in the longitudinal extension of the tubular rotating target [4] (as shown in De Bosscher’s fig. 11b) (Abstract; col. 8, lines 19-6; col. 9, lines 1-7). Thus the combination of Zoeller and Seeser, with evidence by De Bosscher, teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that each axis of rotation [10],[10’] of each of the two lenses [3],[3’] is located in the claimed “vicinity of a transition” from the first region to the second region. The cropped figures below of Zoeller’s fig. 1 and De Bosscher’s figs. 11a-b serve to clarify how each axis of rotation [10],[10’] is in the vicinity of the transition from the first region to the second region.
.
PNG
media_image1.png
669
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 21, the combination of references Zoeller, Seeser, and Schrader with evidence by De Bosscher has: Zoeller showing in fig. 1 that each lens [3],[3’] is positioned transversely offset relative to each of the rectangular targets (i.e. Seeser’s tubular rotating targets) [6],[7] such that each lens [3],[3’] is approximately split with being in the first and second regions (i.e. middle and end regions) and each axis (i.e. axis of rotation) [10],[10’] is between then first and second region; De Bosscher teaches in fig. 11a-b a transition region between the end and middle regions that has a rate of removal that varies by at least 10% via “peaks” or “very steep walls” in the second region (col. 10, lines 26-41). Thus the combination of references reasonably suggests the axis of rotation [10],[10’] of each lens [3],[3] (of Zoeller) would be positioned at least substantially in the transition region (shown by De Bosscher).
Response to Arguments
Brief Arguments on p. 3-7 filed 11/13/2025 are addressed below.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 3-6 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Zoeller and Seeser with evidence by De Bosscher being applied in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-7 with respect to claim 16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Zoeller, Seeser, and Schrader being applied in the current rejection.
In addition, in response to Applicant's arguments on p. 6-7 against the references Zoeller and Shrader individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (MPEP 2145, IV). In this case, Zoeller teaches the claimed carrier, and Shrader teaches certain mechanical components that are present for moving the carrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights