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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claims 1—21 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 04/16/2026.
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—5, 11—14, 16—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt (Rugfelt hereafter) in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers (Essers hereafter).
As per claim 1, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches:
A device for supporting and/or stabilizing a living being (1—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]),
in, the device comprising- a base element (2—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]), having an evacuable and/or inflatable interior (Claim 2: support cushion 2 permeable to air), and a support section arranged on or in the base element for supporting the living being (3—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]), the base element and the support section are joined to one another in a non-detachable manner (2 & 3—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]: support cushion joined to base element via weld connection).
Rugfelt does not teach, the support section having a compressive strength different from a compressive strength of the base element, and the support section including at least two textile fabrics, joined to one another and spaced apart from one another by a plurality of threads.
Essers teaches, the support section (24-Fig.2) having a compressive strength different from a compressive strength of the base element (pg.3 para [0003]: different compression hardnesses), and the support section including at least two textile fabrics (12 & 13—Fig.2 ; pg.6 para [0004]), joined to one another and spaced apart from one another by a plurality of threads (14—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0006]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a base element and a support element attached in a non detachable manner) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element joined and spaced apart from one another by threads) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength joined and spaced apart from one another by threads. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to: connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]) and provide fabric with different densities among one another resulting in different hardnesses as taught in Essers (pg. 5 para [0006]).
As per claim 2, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach , wherein the at least one support section is formed as a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section (12-Fig.2) is a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric (claim 3: support section 12 at least one spacer knitted fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element and the support section is a knitted spacer fabric) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 3, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the threads form a woven layer, between the at least two textile fabrics.
Essers (as modified) teaches: wherein the threads form a woven layer, between the at least two textile fabrics (14—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]: woven layer formed between two fabrics 12 & 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 4, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from a plastic, preferably from polyester.
Essers (as modified) teaches, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from a plastic (pg.5 para [0004]: fabrics 12 & 13 may be made of polyester).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 5, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the base element and the support section are formed integral with one another.
Essers (as modified) teaches, wherein the base element and the support section are formed integral with one another (19, 12, 13 & 5—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]: base element 5 and support section 12 & 13 formed integral with one another via element 19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 7, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches:
The device according to claim 1 wherein the interior of the base element is inflatable and only filled with air (Claim 2).
As per claim 11, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach , wherein one support section has a thickness in a range of between 2 mm and 40 mm.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section has a thickness in a range of between 2 mm and 40 mm (pg.5 para [0004] support section 12 thickness between 2 to 100mm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 12, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the support section includes at least four textile fabrics joined to one another in pairs by a plurality of threads.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section includes at least four textile fabrics (claim 3: three piles spacer knitted fabric 12, 12a 23 & 12b) joined to one another in pairs by a plurality of threads (14—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 13, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach wherein the support section comprises at least two plies of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric.
Essers teaches wherein the support section comprises at least two plies of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric (claim 3: at least one spacer knitted fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 14, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 13
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein at least two of the at least two plies have different compressive strengths from each another.
Essers teaches, wherein at least two of the at least two plies have different compressive strengths from each another (claim 3: at least one spacer knitted fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 16, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the support section comprises at least three plies of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section comprises at least three plies (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones) of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric (claim 3: three piles spacer knitted fabric 12, 12a 23 & 12b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 17, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 16
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein a first ply and a second ply of the at least three plies have a first compressive strength and a third ply of the at least three plies has a second compressive strength different than the first compressive strength.
Essers teaches, wherein a first ply and a second ply of the at least three plies have a first compressive strength (pg.6 para [0006]) and a third ply of the at least three plies has a second compressive strength different than the first compressive strength (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 18 Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 17.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least three plies are arranged such that the third ply with the second compressive strength follows the first ply with the first compressive strength, and the second ply with the first compressive strength follows the third ply with the second compressive strength.
Essers teaches, wherein the at least three plies are arranged such that the third ply with the second compressive strength (claim 3: three piles spacer knitted fabric 12, 12a 23 & 12b; pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses) follows the first ply with the first compressive strength (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses), and the second ply with the first compressive strength follows the third ply with the second compressive strength (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 19 Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 3.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the threads form a pile layer between the at least two textile fabrics.
Essers, wherein the threads form a pile layer between the at least two textile fabrics (pg.5 para [0004]: fabrics 12 & 13 may be made of polyester).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 20 Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 4.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from polyester.
Essers, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from polyester (pg.5 para [0004]: fabrics 12 & 13 may be made of polyester).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
Claim(s) 6—8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers in view of U.S Patent Application 2003/0084511 A1 Salvatini (Salvatini hereafter).
As per claim 6, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least one support section is fluidically isolated.
Salvatini teaches wherein the at least one support section is fluidically isolated (149—Fig.9; para [0052]: inflatable chamber with at least one support section fluidically isolated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a body with an inflatable interior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide support to a patient positioned thereon and protection to lower cushion as taught in Salvanti (para [0052]).
As per claim 8, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the interior of the base is evacuable and at least one of a granular material and an insertion body is arranged in the interior.
Salvatini teaches wherein the interior of the base is evacuable and at least one of a granular material and an insertion body is arranged in the interior (132—Fig.9; para [0052]: interior is an evacuable inflatable chamber with insertion arranged in the interior).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber with insertion arranged in the interior) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a body with an inflatable interior with insertion arranged in the interior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide support to a patient positioned thereon and protection to lower cushion as taught in Salvanti (para [0052]).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers in view of U.S Patent Application 2003/0084511 A1 Salvatini in view of GB 2502867 A to Anand et al. (Anand hereafter).
As per claim 9, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 8.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the insertion body arranged in the interior and is a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric.
Anand teaches, wherein the insertion body arranged in the interior and is a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
As per claim 10, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the support section has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 60 kPa.
Anand teaches, wherein the support section has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 60 kPa (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
As per claim 15, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 14.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein a first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 35 kPa and 60 kPa, and a second one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 55 kPa, preferably between 40 kPa and 50 kPa, particularly preferably 43 kPa
Anand teaches, wherein a first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 35 kPa and 60 kPa (claim) and a second at least one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 55 kPa, preferably between 40 kPa and 50 kPa, particularly preferably 43 kPa (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
As per claim 21, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 15.
Rugfelt does not teach , wherein the first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 45 kPa and 55 kPa, and the second one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 40 kPa and 50 kPa.
Anand teaches, wherein the first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 45 kPa and 55 kPa (claim 3), and the second one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 40 kPa and 50 kPa (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1—4, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 01/16/2025, the Applicant argues,
Regarding Independent claim 1, The Examiner applied the secondary Essers reference in an attempt to address some of the deficiencies in the primary Rugfelt reference. The Essers reference is directed to a mattress and mattress support including a lower layer 3 and an upper layer 4 enveloped within an outer shell 17 (see Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, the lower layer 3 includes a molded body 5 made of foam. On page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner vaguely asserted that the Essers reference teaches a "support section" having a compressive strength different from a compressive strength of a "base element," without identifying the "support section" or "base element" by reference number. Further, the Examiner noted that the Essers reference teaches two textile fabrics 12, 13 joined to one another and spaced apart from one another by a plurality of threads 14. Thus, on pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner concluded that it would be obvious to replace the support section (side supporting cushions 3) of the primary Rugfelt reference with one of the layers of the Essers reference corresponding to a "support section" which has a compressive strength different from that of a base element.
On the other hand, spacer fabric such as that of the secondary Essers reference has properties similar to those of foam, including elastic deformation under load, and
returning to the original shape when the load is no longer applied (see paragraph [0010] of the Essers reference). These elastic properties of the spacer fabric are quite contrary to the adjustable stiffening qualities of the cushions 2, 3 of the primary Rugfelt reference. Thus, replacing or adding to the evacuable side support cushions 3 of the Rugfelt reference with the elastic spacer fabric of the secondary Essers reference as suggested by the Examiner would negate the advantageous "adjustable stiffening" effects achieved by the evacuable side cushions of the Rugfelt reference, and prevent the support element of the Rugfelt reference from providing the necessary stability particular during transport of a patient.
It is well established that if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. MPEP §2143.01(V); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case, as noted above, replacing or adding to the evacuable side support cushions 3 of the Rugfelt reference with the elastic spacer fabric of the secondary Essers reference as suggested by the Examiner would inject permanent elastic qualities into the cushions 2, 3 of the Rugfelt reference, thereby negating the advantageous "adjustable stiffening" effects achieved by the evacuable side cushions of the Rugfelt reference. As such, one skilled in the art would not even consider combining the Essers reference with the primary Rugfelt reference as suggested by the Examiner, because such a combination would destroy the intended stabilizing function of the cushions 2, 3 of the Rugfelt reference.
Because one skilled in the art would not even attempt to modify the Rugfelt reference with the Essers reference as suggested by the Examiner, it is respectfully submitted that this combination is improper and the prior art rejections should be withdrawn.
Should the Examiner have any particular comments or suggestions for furthering prosecution after reviewing the above remarks, the Examiner is requested to contact the Applicant's undersigned representative.
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons:
1) Regarding independent claim 1 the examiner relies on the teachings of WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers as modified by to form the basis of the rejection. The examiner highlights Essers teaches the support section (24-Fig.2) having a compressive strength different from a compressive strength of the base element (pg.3 para [0003]: different compression hardnesses). The examiner further highlights that combining the features of Essers to Rugfelt would be obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to make such a combination to: connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]) and provide fabric with different densities among one another resulting in different hardnesses as taught in Essers (pg. 5 para [0006]).
2) Dependent claims 2—21 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt as modified above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights