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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Drawing and Specification Objections, Applicant argues, “Claims 1-20 are hereby canceled. Therefore, the drawing/specification objection are moot.”
The Examiner agrees in part with respect to claim limitations that have been cancelled which raised Drawing and Specification objections. However, claim limitations which raised Drawing Objections and which remain in the current claims still raise Drawing Objections. Additionally, Drawing Objections that were not related to claim limitations have not been overcome by the cancellation of Claims 1-20.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of sensors,” “first height position,” “second height position,” “plurality of indented grooves,” and “the knuckle rotation assembly can be rotated in a first rotation direction and a second rotation direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 1 is objected to for containing reference character “16,” which is not accompanied by a lead line to the structure which it identifies.
The drawings are objected to for improper/inconsistent use of lead line arrows (see 37 CFR 1.84(r)). As an example, reference character “190” (Fig. 6) has a lead line with no arrow and appears to reference a specific structure, whereas reference character “190” (Fig. 7) has a lead line with an arrow pointing to a region having a plurality of structures.
Figure 13 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference character “5” which is not mentioned in the description.
Arrowed lead lines of reference characters 2 and 4 are too removed from the structures they’re associated with, resulting in ambiguity in Figure 1.
Figures 1-31 are objected to for failing to meet drawing criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim limitations “horizontal beam” and “vertical beam” are not disclosed in Applicant’s originally filed Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control system,” “extension assembly,” and “locking assembly.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21. The claim limitation “a plurality of sensors positioned on a top portion and a bottom portion of the frame” is deemed to be New Matter given that Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not support “a plurality of sensors positioned on a top portion…of the frame.” The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Fig. 1 may support a sensor positioned on a top portion of boom support (140), but the boom support has not been disclosed as being a component of the frame.
Claims 21, 27, and 36. The limitation “the front support assembly includes a vertical beam” is deemed to be New Matter. The limitation “vertical beam” lacks antecedence in the Specification, and there is no vertical beam shown in any of Applicant’s figures. As best as can be ascertained by the Examiner, claimed “vertical beam” is referencing disclosed “rear frame support” (62), which has been disclosed as being a component of the rear support assembly (Applicant’s Specification, Par. 0047).
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 21-40 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.
Claims 21, 27, and 36 contain the limitation “a vertical beam” which is indefinite in that the term lacks antecedence in Applicant’s originally filed Specification, and given that Applicant’s drawings do not show any vertical beam. However, as best as the Examiner can ascertain, claimed “vertical beam” is referencing disclosed “rear frame support” (62) in light of the limitation “the free-floating rear wheel is coupled to a second end of the vertical beam.” To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “vertical beam” as being disclosed “rear frame support” (62).
Claims 21, 27, and 36 are further indefinite for the limitation “the front support assembly includes a vertical beam.” As best as can be ascertained, claimed “vertical beam” is referencing disclosed “rear frame support” (62), which has been disclosed as being a component of the rear support assembly (Applicant’s Specification, Par. 0047). To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claimed “vertical beam” as being a component of the rear support assembly, as disclosed in Applicant’s Specification and Drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 (as best understood by the Examiner) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grether (US 5,409,346).
Grether discloses;
Claim 21. A forklift assembly, comprising:
a frame (1, 2, 13, and 15) having a plurality of sensors (59, 61, and 62) positioned on a top portion and a bottom portion of the frame;
a front support assembly (1), the front support assembly includes a vertical beam (interpreted as a longitudinal beam) (13 and 15); and
a horizontal beam (annotated Fig. 1), the vertical beam coupling (indirectly) to a central portion of the horizontal beam (illustrated in Fig. 1);
a front wheel (7) coupled to each end of the horizontal beam; a rear support assembly (2); the rear support assembly includes a free-floating rear wheel (33), the free-floating rear wheel is coupled (indirectly) to a second end of the vertical beam; an extension assembly (Fig. 3); and
a carriage assembly (4 and 5) permitting clockwise rotation and counterclockwise rotation with respect to the extension assembly (Col. 2-7 and Fig. 1-2 and 19-22).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-26 (as best understood by the Examiner) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether in view of Iotti (US 2019/0300346).
Grether discloses;
Claim 22. The forklift assembly of claim 21, wherein the forklift assembly further includes a control system (Col. 7, Ln. 21-33).
Claim 23. The forklift assembly includes a frame actuator assembly (19) (Col. 7 and Fig. 2).
Claim 24. The forklift assembly of claim 23, wherein the forklift assembly further includes a front support actuator assembly (22) positioned between the horizontal beam and the vertical (interpreted as horizontal) beam (Col. 3 and Fig. 1).
Grether is silent to;
Claim 22. The control system permits remote control operation.
Claim 23. The frame actuator assembly is positioned within the vertical (interpreted as horizontal) beam.
Claim 25. The forklift assembly of claim 24, wherein the plurality of sensors are in communication with the frame actuator assembly to extend or retract the vertical beam ().
Claim 26. The forklift assembly of claim 25, wherein the plurality of sensors are in communication with the front support actuator assembly to rotate the horizontal beam with respect to the vertical beam.
However, Iotti discloses a work machine (1) having a horizontal beam (11), a front support actuator assembly (41 and 42), a longitudinal beam (2), a frame actuator assembly (22), a plurality of sensors (51-54), and a control system (6), and further teaches;
Claim 22. The control system permits remote control operation (Par. 0028).
Claim 23. The frame actuator assembly is positioned within the vertical (interpreted as horizontal) beam (Par. 0046).
Claim 25. The forklift assembly of claim 24, wherein the plurality of sensors are in communication with the frame actuator assembly to extend or retract the vertical (interpreted as longitudinal) beam (Par. 0025).
Claim 26. The forklift assembly of claim 25, wherein the plurality of sensors are in communication with the front support actuator assembly to rotate the horizontal beam with respect to the vertical beam (Par. 0063-0064).
Therefore, in view of Iotti’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grether’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Iotti with a reasonable expectation of success so that an operator could control the machine remotely when operating in dangerous environments, the frame actuator would be protected from falling rock and debris during operation, and to insure actuators operate within predetermined safety parameters.
Claims 27-29 and 36 (as best understood by the Examiner) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether in view of Kim (US 2008/0232944).
Grether discloses;
Claim 27. A forklift assembly, comprising:
a frame (1, 2, 13, and 15) having a front support assembly (1), the front support assembly includes a vertical beam (interpreted as a longitudinal beam) (13 and 15); and
a horizontal beam (illustrated in Fig. 1), the vertical beam coupling (indirectly) to a central portion of the horizontal beam;
a front wheel (7) coupled to each end of the horizontal beam;
a rear support assembly (2); the rear support assembly includes a free-floating rear wheel (33), the free-floating rear wheel is coupled (indirectly) to a second end of the vertical beam;
an extension assembly (Fig. 3); and
a carriage assembly (4 and 5) having a pair of prolongated plate members (3) extending horizontally (Col. 2-7 and Fig. 1-2 and 19-22).
Claim 29. The forklift assembly of claim 28, wherein the carriage assembly rotates in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (by means of 22 about 16) (Col. 3 and Fig. 1).
Claim 36. A forklift transfer assembly comprising:
a frame (1, 2, 13, and 15) having a front support assembly (1), the front support assembly includes a vertical beam (interpreted as a longitudinal beam) (13 and 15); and a horizontal beam (annotated Fig. 1), the vertical beam coupling (indirectly) to a central portion of the horizontal beam; a front wheel (7) coupled to each end of the horizontal beam; a rear support assembly (2); the rear support assembly includes a rear wheel (33), the rear wheel is coupled (indirectly) to a second end of the vertical beam; an extension assembly (Fig. 3); and a carriage assembly (4 and 5) having a pair of prolongated plate members (3) extending horizontally (Col. 2-7 and Fig. 1-2 and 19-22).
Grether is silent to;
Claims 27 and 36. The pair of prolongated plate members extend horizontally in a first position and vertically in a second position with respect to the carriage assembly.
Claim 28. The forklift assembly of claim 27, wherein the carriage assembly further includes a locking assembly, the locking assembly stabilizes the pair of prolongated plate members in the second position.
However, Kim discloses an automatic folding fork device for forklift trucks, the automatic folding fork device having a carriage assembly (10) and prolongated plate members (20), and further teaches;
Claim 27. The pair of prolongated plate members extend horizontally in a first position and vertically in a second position with respect to the carriage assembly (Par. 0037 and Fig. 4-5).
Claim 28. The forklift assembly of claim 27, wherein the carriage assembly further includes a locking assembly, the locking assembly stabilizes the pair of prolongated plate members in the second position (80 and 100) (Par. 60 and Fig. 13-14).
Therefore, in view of kim’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grether’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success to include prolongated plate members which can be placed in horizontal and vertical positions and a locking assembly to allow for the prong assembly to be locked in the operable or stowed positions.
Claims 30-33 and 37-40 (as best understood by the Examiner) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether in view of Kim, and further in view of Kishi (US 5,549,437).
Grether discloses;
Claim 31. The forklift assembly of claim 30, wherein the extension assembly includes a boom support (15) coupled (indirectly) to the rear support assembly (Col. 3 and Fig. 1 and 3).
Claim 32. The forklift assembly of claim 31, wherein the extension assembly includes a sliding support (13) positioned within the boom support (Fig. 3).
Claim 33. The forklift assembly of claim 32, wherein the sliding support can extend away from the boom support and retract and extend within the boom support (Col. 3 and Fig. 1 and 3).
Grether is silent to;
Claim 30. The forklift assembly of claim 29, wherein the carriage assembly rotates in a first direction and lifts the frame and the extension assembly above a floor.
However, Kishi discloses a forklift assembly (21) having a carriage assembly (26) and a frame (22), and further teaches rotating the carriage assembly in a first direction which lifts the frame and the extension assembly above a floor so the fork lift truck can be carried at high speed to the destination where it performs loading and unloading operations (Col. 2 and 6 and Fig. 6-7).
Therefore, in view of Kishi’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grether’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Krishi with a reasonable expectation of success so the fork lift truck can be carried at high speed to the destination where it performs loading and unloading operations.
Grether is silent to;
Claim 37. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 36, wherein the carriage assembly rotates in a first direction and lifts the frame and the extension assembly above a floor.
Claim 38. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 37, wherein in a storage position, the carriage assembly is positioned below the rear wheel with respect of a vertical plane.
Claim 39. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 38, wherein in a work position, the carriage assembly rotates in a second direction and lower the frame and the extension assembly to the floor.
Claim 40. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 39, wherein in the storage position each front wheel and the rear wheel are airborne, in the work position each front wheel and the rear wheel are positioned against the floor.
However, Kishi discloses;
Claim 37. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 36, wherein the carriage assembly rotates in a first direction (J) and lifts the frame and the extension assembly above a floor (Col. 6 and Fig. 6-7).
Claim 38. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 37, wherein in a storage position, the carriage assembly is positioned below the rear wheel with respect of a vertical plane (Fig. 7).
Claim 39. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 38, wherein in a work position, the carriage assembly rotates in a second direction (-J) and lower the frame and the extension assembly to the floor.
Claim 40. The forklift transfer assembly of claim 39, wherein in the storage position each front wheel and the rear wheel are airborne (Fig. 7), in the work position each front wheel and the rear wheel are positioned against the floor (Fig. 5).
Therefore, in view of Kishi’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grether’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Krishi with a reasonable expectation of success so the fork lift truck can be carried at high speed to the destination where it performs loading and unloading operations.
Claim 34 (as best understood by the Examiner) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether in view of Kim and Kishi, and further in view of Miller (US 6,213,218).
Grether is silent to;
Claim 34. The forklift assembly of claim 33, wherein each front wheel is extendable and retractable with respect to the horizontal beam.
However, Miller discloses a sod laying apparatus (1) having a forklift attachment (Fig. 10) and a horizontal beam (right and left 25), and further teaches each front wheel is extendable and retractable with respect to the horizontal beam to decrease length for transport (Col. 4, Ln. 51-58, and Fig. 1-2 and 8-10).
Therefore, in view of Miller’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grether’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success to decrease length for transport.
Claim 35 (as best understood by the Examiner) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether in view of Kim, Kishi, and Miller, and further in view of McGrane et al. (US 2011/0052354).
Grether is silent to;
Claim 35. The forklift assembly of claim 34, wherein the forklift assembly further includes a control system to permit remote control operation.
However, McGrane discloses a top mount method and system for a forklift, and further teaches operating the forklift with a remote control unit (33) to permit the operator of the forklift to mount the
forklift onto the carrying vehicle from a position remote from the forklift (Abstract, Par. 0052-0053, and Fig. 2a-2d).
Therefore, in view of McGrane’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grether’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of McGrane with a reasonable expectation of success to mount the forklift onto a carrying vehicle from a position remote from the forklift.
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
PNG
media_image1.png
964
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652