Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 limitations are: a suctioning portion and a dust collecting portion in claim 1, a first flow regulating member in claim 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus, the suctioning portion is interpreted as a duct/channel upstream from the dust collecting portion. The dust collecting portion is interpreted as a bin/container comprising a filter therein to keep the dust trapped in the bin/container while air can travel therethrough. The first flow regulating member is interpreted as a member comprising a radially extending portion that extends between the first and second stages of the fan, and an axially extending portion that surrounds at least a portion of the first stage of the fan.
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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 16 and 17 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While original claims are generally viewed as part of the written description, “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” See MPEP 2163(1)(A). In addition, “The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.” See MPEP 2163(I). In this case, as detailed below, claim 16 is not described with sufficient particularity and/or contradict the originally filed specification and drawings, thus one of skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of claim 16 at the time of filing.
Claim 16 recites the engaging portion is disposed in a bearing holding member. Applicant’s originally filed figures and specification teach the bearing holding member 130 to have an engaging portion 133 projecting upward from a portion of the member 130 so that the engaging portion 133 is at an upper end of the bearing holding member 130—not within the bearing holding member. The examiner recommends amending this claim so that the bearing holding member comprises the engaging portion.
Claim 17 is rejected for depending from claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 2-12 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites first flow regulating member between the dust collecting fans adjacent with one another in the axial direction. It is unclear what elements are adjacent to each other. Are the fans adjacent? Or is the first flow regulating member adjacent each of the fans? For purposes of examination the latter interpretation will be used since it is unclear how the fans can be adjacent to each other if the flow regulating member is therebetween.
Claim 5 recites the rib. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 5 also recites the vane at the end of the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the plurality of vanes previously introduced or is referring to only one of the plurality of vanes.
Claim 9 recites the fan shaft separately includes a connecting shaft connected to the rotation shaft, and the connecting shaft is connected to the fan shaft. It is unclear how the connecting shaft can be part of the fan shaft and also be connected to the fan shaft as these are mutually exclusive limitations.
Claim 10 recites the fan shaft and the connecting shaft are relatively rotatable only by a predetermined angle around the shaft. As detailed above, it is unclear how the connecting shaft can be part of the fan shaft and be rotatably thereto. It is also unclear what shaft “the shaft” is referring to since multiple shafts are claimed.
Claims 3-4, 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected for depending from at least one of claims 2, 9 and 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 recites the dust collecting fans are disposed in two stages in the axial direction. Since the claim is open ended, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is that the dust collecting attachment comprises at least two dust collecting fans disposed in at least two stages. This interpretation does not further narrow claim 1 as claim 1 requires this interpretation. The examiner recommends adding the word “only” before “two stages”.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2017/0057037 (“Lauer”) in view of US Patent No. 993,985 (“Harker”).
Regarding claim 1, Lauer teaches a dust collecting attachment for an electric power tool (¶ [0001] & [0007]), the dust collecting attachment comprising: dust collecting fan[] (40) (fig. 3, ¶ [0022]) ; a suctioning portion (28/30/42) that generates a suctioning force by rotation of the dust collecting fans (figs. 1 & 3, ¶ [0018], [0021] & [0035]); and a dust collecting portion (26) that captures dust suctioned from the suctioning portion (fig. 1, ¶ [0004] & [0020]), wherein when the dust collecting attachment is mounted to the electric power tool including a motor (fig. 2, ¶ [0017], [0021] & [0030]-[0035]). While the dust collection box is not illustrated in figs. 3-7, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the box is merely omitted because Lauer teaches dust collection systems having them (see ¶ [0004] & [0020]), and the figures have an open space where the box is to be attached (e.g. when viewing figs. 3-4, there is no flow path between arm 30 and fan 40 because the dust collection box is removed). Assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not infer the dust collection system comprises a dust collection box with a filter therein, Lauer teaches that it is known and predictable for dust collection devices to have a box with a filter (¶ [0004] & [0020]). Thus, in order to provide a suction flow path between the fan 40 and arm 30, and to be able to collect dust that is suctioned, it would be obvious for the device of Lauer to have a removable collection box with a filter therein.
Lauer further teaches a fan shaft (50) of the dust collecting fans is connected to a rotation shaft that is disposed in the electric power tool and rotates in accordance with driving of the motor to allow the dust collecting fans to rotate integrally with the rotation shaft (fig. 3 & 6, ¶ [0022] [0028]-[0030] & [0035]-[0036]).
Lauer fails to explicitly teach a plurality of fans, wherein the dust collecting fans are disposed in a plurality of stages in an axial direction of the fan shaft. However, this would have been obvious in view of Harker.
Harker is also directed to a dust collecting device that creates suction by rotating a fan via a motor (page 1 lines 18-28 & 93-105). Harker teaches a two-stage centrifugal fan having identical fans, wherein the additional stages increase efficiency of the machine without altering the construction of other parts of the machine, and wherein more or less stages may be used depending on desired efficiency and suction pull (figs. 1-2, page 1 lines 36-44, page 2 lines 66-75 & 110-125). Between the two stages, pressure increasing vanes 67 are positioned and covered by disk 68 to increase efficiency and suction pull of the fan (pages 2-3, lines 125-8).
In this case, each of Lauer and Harker are directed to a dust collecting device that creates suction by rotating a radial/centrifugal fan via a motor. Harker teaches a fan assembly that can increase efficiency and suction pull of the fan without changing the structure of other parts of the device, i.e. the multistage centrifugal fan with the pressure increasing vanes 67 therebetween. Thus, in order to increase efficiency and suction pull of the suction device of Lauer, it would be obvious to modify the radial/centrifugal fan of Lauer with the two-stage centrifugal fan assembly of Harker that has two identical centrifugal fans with pressure increasing vanes positioned therebetween.
Claim 2 recites a first flow regulating member between the dust collecting fans adjacent with one another in the axial direction, the first flow regulating member guiding air from an outer peripheral side of the dust collecting fan of a first stage to a center side of the dust collecting fan of a second stage, wherein each of the dust collecting fans is a centrifugal fan. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above, the fan assembly of Lauer et al. includes two centrifugal fans. Further, the fan assembly comprises a fan casing unit 50 that has a radially inwardly extending portion with vanes 67 thereon that is axially between the two fans and directs air from an outer peripheral side of the dust collecting fan of a first stage to a center side of the dust collecting fan of a second stage (fig. 1 and page 2 lines 66-1-9 & 125-130 of Harker). This fan casing unit 50 is interpreted as the first flow regulating member.
Regarding claim 3, Lauer et al. further teach a second flow regulating member (68) between the dust collecting fan of the first stage and the first flow regulating member, the second flow regulating member partitioning between a downstream side surface of the dust collecting fan of the first stage and an airflow by the first flow regulating member (fig. 1, pages 2-3 lines 125-8 of Harker, wherein member 68 is between the first fan and the radially inwardly extending portion of the first flow regulating member 50).
Claim 4 recites a whirl-shaped rib disposed upright on a surface of the second flow regulating member on a side of the first flow regulating member. The second flow regulating member 68 is secured to the whirl shaped vanes 67 via rivets (Harker; figs. 1 & 3, pages 2-3 lines 125-1). Thus, the vanes, i.e. whirl shaped ribs, are disposed on a surface of the second flow regulating member 68 on a side facing the radially inwardly extending portion of the first flow regulating member. Further, as illustrated in fig. 1 of Harker, the ribs/vanes 67 extend vertically between the first and second flow regulating members, i.e. are upright.
Regarding claim 5, Lauer et al. further teach a plurality of whirl-shaped vanes (63) disposed on a surface on an upstream side of the airflow in each of the dust collecting fans (figs. 1-2 & page 2 lines 110-125 of Harker), wherein the rib of the second flow regulating member is formed in a winding direction (fig. 3 of Harker). Claim 5 also recites the winding direction of the rib is identical to a direction of the vane. As illustrated in figs. 2 & 3 of Harker, the ribs 67 curve in the opposite direction of the vanes when viewing the ribs extending along the first flow regulating member (e.g. a plan view of the upstream surface of the first flow regulating member that comprises the ribs). Thus, when viewing a plan view of the ribs extending along the second flow regulating member 68, i.e. viewing the vanes from a bottom plan view of figure 1, the vanes extend/wind on the second flow regulating member 68 in the same direction as the vanes on the fan blades.
Regarding claim 6, Lauer et al. further teach the first flow regulating member and the second flow regulating member are secured with one another (fig. 1 & pages 2-3 lines 125-1 of Harker, i.e. secured via rivets 69).
Claim 7 recites the first flow regulating member is a box-shaped body having a circular shape that surrounds the dust collecting fan of the first stage from the axial direction and an outside in a radial direction, and the second flow regulating member is secured inside the first flow regulating member. As illustrated in fig. 1 of Harker, the first flow regulating member 50 is box-shaped since it has a bottom radially extending portion (i.e. portion with vanes 67) and an axially extending portion extending upright from the outer end of the radially extending portion. Harker also teaches the first flow regulating member 50 being circular (see figs. 1-3 of Harker). In addition, the bottom radially extending portion (i.e. portion with vanes 67) and portion 52 (which is interpreted as part of the first flow regulated member) at least partially cover and surround the first stage from the axial direction, and the outer axially extending portion of member 50 that extends between the vanes 67 and portion 52 surround the first stage in a radial direction (see fig. 1 of Harker).
Claim 8 recites the first flow regulating member is constituted by assembling a pair of half-divided members divided in two having a diameter direction as a dividing surface, and in association with assembling of the pair of half-divided members, the dust collecting fan of the first stage is covered, and the second flow regulating member is secured. When interpreting element 52 of Harker as part of the first flow regulating member, the first flow regulating member comprises two halves, i.e. a bottom half 50 and a top half 52 (see fig. 1 of Harker). As further illustrated in fig. 1 of Harker, a dividing surface between halves 50 & 52 extends in the thickness/radial direction, the radial direction reading on a diameter direction. Further, when the halves 50 & 52 are attached via bolts 57 the first stage is covered and the second flow regulating member 68 is secured in its position (fig. 1). Since the second flow regulating member 68 is secured to portion 50 of the first flow regulating member, securing the first flow regulating member in place via bolts 57 also secures the second flow regulating member in place (fig. 1 & page 2 lines 88-109 of Harker).
Assuming arguendo that half divided means divided into two roughly equal parts, this would be an obvious design choice. In this case, the first flow regulated member comprises members 50 & 52, wherein member 50 has a radially inwardly extending portion and a an axially extending portion that connects to member 52 (wherein member 52 extends radially inwardly from the axially extending portion a distance roughly equal to the distance the radially inwardly extending portion of member 50 extends). Modifying the structure of these members so that the axially extending portion of member 50 is reduced in length by half and member 52 is provided with a corresponding axially extending portion having a length equal to that of the axially extending portion of member 50 is a minor structural difference that would be the result of an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). The slightly modified structure of members 50 & 52 would not perform differently as the assembled structure would look identical to the structure illustrated in fig. 1 of Harker (the only different being the location of the seam between members 50 & 52), and the bolts 57 will still be able to secure members 50 & 52 together. In addition, providing roughly equal halves of the first flow regulating member does not seem to be a critical feature of the claimed invention, produce unexpected results, or solve a stated problem—at least with respect to a flow regulating member 50 & 52 taught by Harker, i.e. being split so the two members are secured by bringing them together in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 9, Lauer further teaches the fan shaft separately includes a connecting shaft (86) connected to the rotation shaft (figs. 3 & 5-6, ¶ [0028]-[0030] & [0035]), and the connecting shaft is connected to the fan shaft (50) in a state where the connecting shaft is movable in the axial direction and is biased to a connecting side with the rotation shaft via an elastic member (200) (figs. 3 & 5-6, ¶ [0028], [0033] & [0035]).
Claim 10 recites the fan shaft and the connecting shaft are relatively rotatable only by a predetermined angle around the shaft. The term “rotatable” as used in the claim includes two parts connected via a coil spring that is capable of torsional deformation (see ¶ [0027] & [0037] of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure). Since the connecting shaft of Lauer is connected to the fan shaft via a coil spring, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the coil spring is capable of some amount of torsional deformation.
Regarding claim 11, Lauer further teaches the fan shaft includes an outer sleeve (50) where each of the dust collecting fans is secured (fig. 3 & 5, ¶ [0022]), and the connecting shaft (86) is disposed movably in the axial direction inside the outer sleeve (figs. 3 & 5, ¶ [0028] [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Lauer further teaches the elastic member (200) is a coil spring (fig. 5, ¶ [0028]).
Claim 13 recites the respective dust collecting fans have an identical shape. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, two centrifugal fans having an identical shape are used (see also fig. 1 & page 2 lines 110-125 of Harker).
Regarding claim 14, Lauer further teaches the dust collecting fans are disposed in two stages in the axial direction. See the rejection to claim 1, above (see also fig. 1 & page 2 lines 110-125 of Harker).
Regarding claim 15, Lauer further teaches an engaging portion (76/78) that engages with the electric power tool to center the fan shaft with respect to the rotation shaft when the fan shaft is connected to the rotation shaft (figs. 2 & 5, ¶ [0025] & [0033]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Lauer further teaches the engaging portion is disposed [on] a bearing holding member (62) that holds a bearing (84) supporting the fan shaft, and the fan shaft and the bearing holding member are positioned to one another via the bearing (figs. 3-5, ¶ [0027]-[0029]).
Claim 18 recites an electric power tool comprising the dust collecting attachment according to claim 1. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, Lauer et al. teach the attachment of claim 1. Lauer teaches connecting the dust collecting attachment to an electric power tool (figs. 2 & 6-7, ¶ [0017] & [0030]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Arielle Hein, 3D Printing Joints, Published October 18, 2016, available at https://coloringchaos.github.io/form-fall-16/joints (“Hein”).
Regarding claim 17, Lauer further teaches the bearing holding member has a sleeve shape (fig. 4-5 of Lauer, wherein the bearing holding member has a portion/opening that sleeves/surrounds shaft 86). Lauer fails to explicitly teach a ring-shaped end portion serving as the engaging portion projects on a side of the rotation shaft. However, this would have been obvious in view of Hein.
Hein is directed to joints between parts (see page 1, wherein all references to Hein refer to the document submitted herewith). Hein teaches that when connecting parts it is known to use as single solid projection that engages with another part (see pages 5-6), and that an annular projection can also be used (see page 6).
In this case, Lauer teaches two solid projections 76 & 78 extend from the bearing holding member 62 to engage recesses 212 of the power tool (figs. 2-5, ¶ [0025] & [0034]). One of skill in the art appreciates that there is a wide variety of structures capable of being used for projection/recess engagement and alignment of two parts. Hein teaches one of skill in the art that an annular projection is a known substitute for single solid projections. Further, it would be predictable to slightly modify the structure of elements 24, 26, 62, to allow an annular projection to extend from a top surface of element 62 and extend around shaft 86. It would also be predictable to to provide an annular recess in the bottom of the power tool that is configured to receive the annular projection on the bearing holding member 62. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the projections 76 & 78 for an annular projection that is configured to engage an annular recess on the bottom of the power tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”