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 Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-15 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the amendments to
the drawing objections are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-15, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “For example, the shaft 100 is fixed to the support bodies 200 and 300 and does not rotate, and the roller 400 supported by the shaft 100 rotates. The shaft 100 may be rotatably supported by the support bodies 200 and 300 such that the shaft 100 and the roller 400 may rotate together.”;
“Although the brake shoes 7 do form a sort of protrusion into a groove, it is clear that Minowa teaches that the groove is in a radially outer surface of the shaft 4 - not in an axial end of the shaft.” (the claim requires the axial end of the roller), are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to “The disclosure by Minowa would also suggest that these brake shoes 7 inserted into the shaft 4 are designed specifically to contact the shaft 4 and perform a braking action (i.e., slow down the rotation of the shaft). This is opposed to Applicant's amended claim 1 which requires that the protrusion is "not in contact with [the] inner surface" of the accommodation grooves.”, the examiner disagrees. The roller has been identified as 4, see below.
With respect to “The disclosure by Minowa would also suggest that these brake shoes 7 inserted into the shaft 4 are designed specifically to contact the shaft 4 and perform a braking action (i.e., slow down the rotation of the shaft). This is opposed to Applicant's amended claim 9 which requires that the protrusion is "not in contact with [the] inner surface" of the accommodation grooves.”, the examiner disagrees. The examiner recognizes the distinction between the prior art and the instant application, however, broadness of the claim’s limitations allow the cited inventions to read on the language of the claim. As can be seen in Minowa’s figures 1 and 2, the protrusions are not in contact, as the claim requires.
With respect to “Otsu fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the element of Applicant's amended claim 1 of… Applicant respectfully submits that Patmore also fails to remedy the defects… Applicants further respectfully submits that Kidd fails to remedy the defects…”, the examiner disagrees. The cited art are used as teaching references to support the primary reference. Further, the cited prior art relate to caster wheels and one of ordinary skill would be able to make the modification.
With respect to “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's claims 1 and 9 are outside the scope and content of the prior art cited in the outstanding rejections and that there is no prima facie case of obviousness.”, the examiner disagrees. The prior art utilize caster wheels, and therefore, analogous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0119864 A1).
Referring to claim 1: Minowa discloses a roller assembly (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) having a first end and a second end (SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below);
a first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) to which the first end (SH-1 Figs. 1-A inserted below) of the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) is coupleable (shown in Figs. 1-3 and 1-A inserted below);
a second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) to which the second end (SH-2 Figs. 1-A inserted below) of the shaft is coupleable; and
a roller (4 Figs. 1-3), coupleable between (shown in Figs. 1-3) the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below), and having a cylindrical shape (shown in Fig. 3) in which the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) is insertable and rotatably supported (shown in Figs. 1-3) by the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) while the shaft is inserted,
wherein the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) respectively comprise a protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted below) that protrudes toward axial ends (AE-1 and AE-2 Fig. 3-A inserted below) of the roller while the roller (4 Figs. 1-3) is coupled between the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below), the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted below) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) respectively protrude from the first support body and the second support body (SB-1 and SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below), and
the roller comprises accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) on the axial ends (AE-1 and AE-2 Fig. 3-A inserted below) of the roller (4 Figs. 1-3) the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted below) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) being insertable into, but not in contact (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) with an inner surface of, the accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) on the axial ends (AE-1 and AE-2 Fig. 3-A inserted below) of the roller (4 Figs. 1-3), respectively, such that while the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) is inserted into the roller, the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) is unexposed (the shaft is hidden inside the roller 4) to outside of the roller assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
513
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
518
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 3: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 1, wherein the accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) face outer circumferential surfaces (outer circumferential surfaces of 6) and inner circumferential surfaces (inner circumferential surfaces of 7) of the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) in parallel (shown facing parallel to each other in Fig. 2-A inserted below).
Referring to claim 7: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 1, wherein a coupling unit (3, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) having a snap-fit structure (14 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above; 14 “extends through” 15 [0057]) is arranged in an outer portion (outer portion of SB-1 shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above), and a second engagement protrusion (top end of 6 of SB-2) is arranged (arranged via 15 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) on an outer portion of the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above).
Referring to claim 8: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 7, wherein the coupling unit (3, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) comprises: a beam (15 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) comprising a first engagement protrusion (top end of 6 of SB-1) and a pressing protrusion (pressing protrusion end of coil spring 8); and a bridge (16 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) to connect the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) to the beam (15 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) with a gap (gap between 16 and SB-1 shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) therebetween.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0119864 A1).
Referring to claim 4: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 1, wherein the accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) are spaced apart from outer circumferential surfaces (outer circumferential surfaces of 6 and 7) of the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above), respectively, in a direction perpendicular to the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above).
But is silent on the accommodation grooves are spaced apart from outer circumferential surfaces of the protrusion by specifically by 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm.
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions that the tube connecting part can be along the circumference of the suction tube; further, the prior art teaches the accommodation grooves are spaced apart from outer circumferential surfaces of the protrusion. Therefore, modifying the roller assembly of Minowa to specifically have a distance of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the roller assembly of Minowa with reasonable expectations of success. It would have been obvious to have modified the roller assembly of Minowa by spacing the gap distance between 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm for the purpose of having the appropriate tolerance distance between the two objects to avoid unnecessary/ unintentional contact.
Claims 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0119864 A1) and OTSU (JP 2001008864 A).
Referring to claim 9: Minowa teaches the at least one roller assembly (Figs. 1-3) comprises: a shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) having a first end (SH-1 and Fig. 1-A inserted above) and a second end (SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above);
a first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) to which the first end (SH-1 Figs. 1-A inserted above) of the shaft is coupleable (shown in Figs. 1-3 and 1-A inserted above);
a second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) to which the second end (SH-2 Figs. 1-A inserted above) of the shaft is coupleable; and a roller (4 Figs. 1-3), coupleable between (shown in Figs. 1-3) the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above), and having a cylindrical shape (shown in Fig. 3) in which the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) is insertable and rotatably supported (shown in Figs. 1-3) by the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) while the shaft is inserted,
the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) respectively comprise a protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) that protrudes toward axial ends (AE-1 and AE-2 Fig. 3-A inserted above) of the roller while the roller (4 Figs. 1-3) is coupled between the first support body and the second support body, the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) of the first support body and the second support body respectively protrude from the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the roller comprises accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) on the axial ends (AE-1 and AE-2 Fig. 3-A inserted above) of the roller (4 Figs. 1-3) the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) being insertable into, but not in contact (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) with an inner surface of, the accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) on the axial ends (AE-1 and AE-2 Fig. 3-A inserted above) of the roller (4 Figs. 1-3), respectively, such that while the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) is inserted into the roller, the shaft is unexposed (the shaft is hidden inside the roller 4) to outside of the at least one roller assembly; and at least one roller assembly accommodation unit (AU Fig. 2-A inserted above).
But is silent on a vacuum cleaner comprising: a vacuum cleaner body including a built-in motor configured to generate a suction force; a brush body, connectable to the vacuum cleaner body, and including a suction port to suck foreign substances from a surface to be cleaned; at least one roller assembly on a bottom surface of the brush body to cause the brush body to be rolling-moved on the surface to be cleaned; and at least one roller assembly accommodation unit arrangeable on the bottom surface of the brush body and having a structure corresponding to the at least one roller assembly such that the at least one roller assembly is able to be attached to or detached from the brush body.
OTSU teaches a vacuum cleaner (1 Fig. 2) comprising: a vacuum cleaner body (2 Fig. 2) including a built-in motor (“electric blower” [0021]) configured to generate a suction force; a brush body (14 Figs. 2, 3, and 7), connectable (shown in Fig. 2) to the vacuum cleaner body (2 Fig. 2), and including a suction port (30 Fig. 3) to suck foreign substances from a surface to be cleaned; at least one roller assembly (65, 66, and 69 Figs. 1, 3, 7, 8, 15, and 16) on a bottom surface (bottom surface of 14 shown in Fig. 7) of the brush body (14 Figs. 2, 3, and 7) to cause the brush body (14 Figs. 2, 3, and 7) to be rolling-moved on the surface to be cleaned; and at least one roller assembly accommodation unit (66 Figs. 1, 3, and 16) arrangeable on the bottom surface (bottom surface of 14 shown in Fig. 7) of the brush body (14 Figs. 2, 3, and 7) and having a structure corresponding (structure of 66 Figs. 1, 3, and 16) to the at least one roller assembly (65, 66, and 69 Figs. 1, 3, 7, 8, 15, and 16) such that the at least one roller assembly (65, 66, and 69 Figs. 1, 3, 7, 8, 15, and 16) is able to be attached to or detached (“the small wheel portion 69 can be rotated and removed” [0066]) from the brush body (14 Figs. 2, 3, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roller assembly of Minowa with the vacuum cleaner assembly as taught by OTSU for the purpose of having the sufficient structure for accommodating and supporting the roller assembly.
Referring to claim 11: Minowa as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 9, wherein the accommodation grooves (4a Figs. 1-3) face outer circumferential surfaces (outer circumferential surfaces of 6) and inner circumferential surfaces (inner circumferential surfaces of 7) of the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) respectively protrudes in parallel (shown facing parallel to each other in Fig. 2-A inserted above).
Referring to claim 14: Minowa as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 9, wherein a coupling unit (3, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) having a snap-fit structure (14 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above; 14 “extends through” 15 [0057]) is arranged in an outer portion (outer portion of SB-1 shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above), a second engagement protrusion (top end of 6 of SB-2) is arranged (arranged via 15 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) on an outer portion (outer portion of SB-2) of the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above), and the coupling unit (3, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) comprises: a beam (15 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) comprising a first engagement protrusion (top end of 6 of SB-1) and a pressing protrusion (pressing protrusion end of coil spring 8); and a bridge (16 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) connecting the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) to the beam (15 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) with a gap (gap between 16 and SB-1 shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) therebetween.
Referring to claim 15: Minowa as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 14, wherein the at least one roller assembly accommodation unit comprises: a first engagement step (first engagement step of SB-1 comprising of 15 and 16 on left Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) to support the first engagement protrusion (top end of 6 of SB-1); a second engagement step (second engagement step of SB-2 comprising of 15 and 16 on right Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) to support the second engagement protrusion (top end of 6 of SB-2); and a pressing groove (pressing groove which accommodates 5 shown in Figs. 1, 2, 1-A, and 2-A inserted above) between (shown between in Fig. 2-A inserted above) the pressing protrusion (pressing protrusion end of coil spring 8) and the at least one roller assembly accommodation unit (AU Fig. 2-A inserted above).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0119864 A1) and Patmore (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0337334 A1).
Referring to claim 5: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a friction member to surround an outer circumferential surface of the roller.
Patmore in an analogous roller assembly (70a Fig. 3) comprising a friction member (82 Fig. 3; “The wheel center 82 has a higher coefficient of friction than the wheel edges 84” [0028]) to surround an outer circumferential surface of the similar configuration roller (68 Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roller assembly of Minowa with the friction member as taught by Patmore for the purpose of increasing the grip between the surface and the roller assembly.
Referring to claim 12: Minowa as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 9, but is silent on further comprising a friction member surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the roller.
Patmore in an analogous roller assembly (70a Fig. 3) comprising a friction member (82 Fig. 3; “The wheel center 82 has a higher coefficient of friction than the wheel edges 84” [0028]) to surround an outer circumferential surface of the similar configuration roller (68 Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roller assembly of Minowa with the friction member as taught by Patmore for the purpose of increasing the grip between the surface and the roller assembly.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0119864 A1) and Kidd (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0207838 A1).
Referring to claim 6: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 1, but is silent on wherein a cross-sectional shape of the first end and/or the second end of the shaft is a polygonal or elliptic cylinder shape, and the first support body and/or the second support body facing the first end and/or the second end of the shaft comprises an insertion groove corresponding to the polygonal or elliptic cylinder shape of the first end and/or the second end of the shaft.
Kidd in an analogous roller assembly (shown in Fig. 1 and 2) and teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of the first end (left end of 38 Fig. 2) and/or the second end (right end of 38 Fig. 2) of the shaft is a polygonal (polygonal shape shown in Fig. 2) or elliptic cylinder shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end of shaft of Minowa with the polygonal shape as taught by Kidd for the purpose of having an alternate fitting end of shaft which can be adjusted with a tool, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support body of Minowa with the first support body and/or the second support body facing the first end and/or the second end of the shaft specifically comprising an insertion groove corresponding to the polygonal or elliptic cylinder shape of the first end and/or the second end of the shaft for the purpose of maximizing the use of available space and ensuring there’s a secure fit between the support body and end of shaft, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Referring to claim 13: Minowa as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 9, but is silent on wherein a cross-sectional shape of the first end and/or the second end of the shaft is a polygonal or elliptic cylinder shape,
and the first support body and/or the second support body facing the first end and/or the second end of the shaft comprises an insertion groove corresponding to the polygonal or elliptic cylinder shape of the first end and/or the second end of the shaft, such that the one end of the shaft is attachable to and detachable from the one of the first support body and the second support body that the one end of the shaft faces.
Kidd in an analogous roller assembly (shown in Fig. 1 and 2) and teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of the first end (left end of 38 Fig. 2) and/or the second end (right end of 38 Fig. 2) of the shaft is a polygonal (polygonal shape shown in Fig. 2) or elliptic cylinder shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end of shaft of Minowa with the polygonal shape as taught by Kidd for the purpose of having an alternate fitting end of shaft which can be adjusted with a tool, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support body of Minowa with the first support body and/or the second support body facing the first end and/or the second end of the shaft specifically comprising an insertion groove corresponding to the polygonal or elliptic cylinder shape of the first end and/or the second end of the shaft for the purpose of maximizing the use of available space and ensuring there’s a secure fit between the support body and end of shaft, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant art is: Minowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0119864 A1) and OTSU (JP 2001008864 A).
Referring to claim 2: Minowa discloses the roller assembly of claim 1, wherein the protrusion (6 and 7 Figs. 1, 2 and 1-A inserted above) of the first support body (SB-1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second support body (SB-2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) respectively protrudes parallel (parallel line “PL” shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) to the shaft (shaft between ends SH-1 and SH-2 Fig. 1-A inserted below).
But is silent on in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to the shaft, is spaced apart from the shaft to have a ring shape around the shaft.
OTSU teaches a protrusion (69b Fig. 1; “an engaging cylinder portion 69b which is substantially coaxially cylindrical and is rotatably fitted” [0032]) is spaced apart from the shaft (67 Fig. 1) to have a ring shape (“substantially coaxially cylindrical” [0032]) around the shaft (67 Fig. 1).
It appears the protrusion is located on one support body. Such a reconstruction would be extensive and would render the assembly of Minowa inoperable, and additionally, there is no motivation to do so. Thus, one would only arrive at the claimed invention by using improper hindsight reasoning knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, and such a reconstruction would be improper.
For similar reasons claim 10 would also be allowable.
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights