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 Amendment
Amendment filed 27 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 4 and 7 are amended. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12, 14, 16 and 18-24 are as previously presented. Claims 10-11, 13, 17 and 25 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 25 March 2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, please refer to the detailed discussion below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 25 June 2026 and 27 July 2026 considered by the examiner.
Examiner notes: IDS submitted on 27 July 2026 has three Non-Patent Literatures (NPL) which are the basis of the new ground of rejection made in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawings filed 25 May 2023 are unclear in view of the claims and specification.
Fig. 3 reference characters “35” and “37” are unclear in view of the spec. of 10 February 2026 pages 27-28 which recite “first value 35 of the stress” and “second value 37 of the stress”. The confusion is with at least the dotted line shown in the fig is viewed as part of the x-axis which is strain (See at least: spec. page 27 line 17, “The x-axis 36 in figure 3 shows strain...) and not stress which is the y-axis. Additionally, fig. 3 is not clear with at least claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 14-15 which recite either “a/the first stress value(s)” or “a/the second stress value(s)” and claims 1-2, 5 and 9 recite either “a first fraction of an uncompressed length”, “a second fraction of the uncompressed length” or “a particular fraction of the uncompressed length.”.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Spec. of 10 February 2026 pages 27-28 recite “first value 35 of the stress” and “second value 37 of the stress” and is not clear in view of at least fig. 3.
Spec. of 10 February 2026 pages 27-28 recite “first value 35 of the stress” and “second value 37 of the stress” and is not clear in view of at least claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 14-15 which recite either “a/the first stress value(s)” or “a/the second stress value(s)” and claims 1-2, 5 and 9 recite either “a first fraction of an uncompressed length”, “a second fraction of the uncompressed length” or “a particular fraction of the uncompressed length. {Examiner note: any change to the claim langue would affect the Spec. as the spec. has the claim language throughout.}
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 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 1, 4, 6-7 and 14-15 recite a combination the limitation “a/the first stress value(s)” or “a/the second stress value(s)”. The claim language is not clear in view of the spec. and fig. 3 as to how to assess the claim language as the claim language is for a stress where the spec. discloses a stress and fig. 3 discloses a strain. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be correct and fig. 3 incorrect. See Examiner modified fig. 3 below for Examiners interpretation.
PNG
media_image2.png
632
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 5 and 9 recite a combination the limitation “a/the first fraction of an/the uncompressed length”, “a/the second fraction of an/the uncompressed length” or “a particular fraction of the uncompressed length.” The claim language is not clear in view of the spec. and fig. 3 as to how to assess the claim language as the claim language is not shown in fig. 3. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be correct and fig. 3 incorrect. See Examiner modified fig. 3 above for Examiners interpretation.
Claims 2-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a gradient” in line 1. Claim 4 line 1 recites “a gradient”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a gradient” of claim 4 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 15 to recite “the gradient”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (NPL “Fatigue analysis on a floating tidal platform with polymer mooring components”, 2019, cited on Applicant IDS of 27 July 2026) in view of Bajeli et al. (US 6112691 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
1363
1271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
608
573
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Johnston discloses a mooring component (polymer component, connection point and interior metal work; See at least: fig. 2) comprising:
at least one compressive element (See at least: fig. 2) arranged to undergo compression in response to a tensile stress experienced by the mooring component (See at least: fig. 3), wherein the at least one compressive element is arranged such that compression of the at least one compressive element induces an extension of the mooring component;
wherein the at least one compressive element is arranged such that a first level of tensile stress (See at least: fig. 3, load (kN)) experienced by the mooring component up to a first stress value (See at least: fig. 3, load (kN)) of the tensile stress compresses the at least one compressive element in a first stage of compression (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%)) by up to a first fraction of an uncompressed length (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%)) of the at least one compressive element, wherein the first fraction is between 10% and 20% of the uncompressed length (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7);
wherein the at least one compressive element is arranged such that a second level of tensile stress (See at least: fig. 3, load (kN))experienced by the mooring component above the first stress value of the tensile stress and up to a second stress value (See at least: fig. 3, load (kN)) of the tensile stress further compresses the at least one compressive element in a second stage of compression (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%)) by greater than the first fraction of the uncompressed length of the at least one compressive element and up to a second fraction (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%)) of the uncompressed length of the at least one compressive element, wherein the second fraction is between 40% and 60% of the uncompressed length (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7);
wherein the at least one compressive element is arranged such that a third level of tensile stress (See at least: fig. 3, load (kN)) experienced by the mooring component above the second stress value of the tensile stress further compresses the at least one compressive element in a third stage of compression (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%)) by greater than the second fraction of the uncompressed length of the at least one compressive element (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7);
wherein during the first stage of compression the at least one compressive element exhibits an average stiffness (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7) having a first stiffness value (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7), wherein during the second stage of compression the average stiffness of the at least one compressive element has a second stiffness value (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7), and wherein during the third stage of compression the average stiffness of the at least one compressive element has a third stiffness value (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7); and
wherein the first stiffness value is greater than the second stiffness value, and the third stiffness value is greater than the second stiffness value (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 2, 6 and 7 where at least response curves 2 and 7 have a slope (rise/run) in the first and third stage of compression that is greater than the slope in the second stage of compression.).
However, Johnston does not disclose wherein the at least one compressive element is arranged such that compression of the at least one compressive element induces an extension of the mooring component (See at least: fig. 2, where the interior metal work is not shown and where it is only shown in a uncompressed state).
Bajeli et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one compressive element (elastic body (3); See at least: figs. 1-2) is arranged such that compression of the at least one compressive element induces an extension of the mooring component (a device; See at least: figs. 1-2 and col. 1 lines 59-67 “...a central elastic body 3 arranged to oppose the movement of the two elements 1, 2 in the opposing directions D1 and D2 respectively.”).
Therefore, 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 the connection point and interior metal work of Johnston with at least U-bent elements 1 and 2 of Bajeli et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a device that that makes less noise during operation and is excellent to the deteritation effects caused by water (See at least: Bajeli et al. col. 1 lines 41-44 “An object of this invention is to provide a damper device for watercraft which obviates the aforesaid drawbacks, particularly by not being noisy and by providing excellent resistance to deterioration effects caused by water.”).
Regarding claim 2, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the first fraction is approximately 15% of the uncompressed length (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 6 and 7; {Examiner notes: the copy of the NPL on file shows 4 curves, however the color and line quality in the record is not clear when viewed with at least responses 2 and 7, therefore Examiner may have selected the wrong one. Fig. 3 shows two of the 4 curves at approx.15%. See Fig. 3 modified by Examiner, below, for interpretation of the fig.}).
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image5.png
891
1178
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the value of the third stiffness value (See at least: fig. 3, response curve 2 has an approx. slope of 67 kN/% in the third stage of compression) is at least 50% greater than the second stiffness value (See at least: fig. 3 response curve 2 has an approx. slope of 19 kN/% in the third stage of compression, where 50% greater is 28.5 kN/% therefore 67 kN/% meets this claim).
Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein a gradient of a stress-strain curve (See at least: fig. 3) of the at least one compressive element is positive for all values of the tensile stress up to the first stress value (See at least: fig. 3 where the slope of the curve shows positive in the x-axis (%) and y-axis (kN)).
Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the second fraction is approximately 50% of the uncompressed length (See at least: fig. 3, compression (%) for response curve 6 and 7 both of which show approx. 50%).
Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the compression of the at least one compressive element is approximately proportional to the tensile stress experienced by the mooring component between the first and second stress values of the tensile stress (See at least: fig. 3, response curves 2, 6 and 7 both where in the second stage of compression where the curves represent an equation that shows proportionality in the slope in the stage {Examiner note: interpretation of this claim is proportionality of mathematics where approx. proportional is the line in the specific stage is representative of an equation where the slope represents a proportionality constant between the x-axis and y-axis.}).
Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the gradient of the stress-strain curve of the at least one compressive element is positive for all stress values of the tensile stress between the first and second stress values (See at least: fig. 3 where the slope of the curve shows positive in the x-axis (%) and y-axis (kN)).
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 8, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches s all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Johnston does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least one compressive element comprises a plurality of shells, wherein each of the plurality of shells comprises a first annular portion, a second annular portion, and a central section, and wherein the central section connects and extends between the first annular portion and the second annular portion (See at least: fig. 2, where the interior metal work is not shown and where it is only shown in a uncompressed state).
Bajeli et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the at least one compressive element (elastic body (3); See at least: figs. 1-2) comprises a plurality of shells (members 10; See at least: figs. 1-2), wherein each of the plurality of shells comprises a first annular portion (major base portion 20; See at least: fig. 2), a second annular portion (minor base portion 11; See at least: fig. 2), and a central section (frusta-conical portion 22; See at least: fig. 2), and wherein the central section connects and extends between the first annular portion and the second annular portion (See at least: fig. 2).
Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the at least one compressive element is arranged such that when the compressive stress applied to the at least one compressive element causes the at least one compressive element to be compressed by a particular fraction of the uncompressed length of the compressive element (See at least: fig. 3), a first portion of one of the plurality of shells contacts a first portion of an adjacent shell of the plurality of shells.
However, Johnston does not disclose a first portion of one of the plurality of shells contacts a first portion of an adjacent shell of the plurality of shells (See at least: fig. 2, where the interior metal work is not shown and where it is only shown in a uncompressed state).
Bajeli et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a first portion of one of the plurality of shells (either of (1) major base portion 20 or (2) minor base portion 11: see at least fig. 2) contacts a first portion of an adjacent shell of the plurality of shells (either of the corresponding (1) major base portion 20 or (2) minor base portion 11: See at least fig. 2 where the arrangement is major base portion 20 contacting each other and minor base portion 11 contacting each other, and minor base portion 11 through movement of D1/D2 contact each other {not shown in the figs.}).
Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 12, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above.
However, Johnston does not disclose claim 12.
Bajeli et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first portions of adjacent shells of the at least one compressive element are arranged to contact each other in the third stage of compression (minor base portion 11: See at least fig. 2 where minor base portion 11 through movement of D1/D2 contact each other {where contact is not shown in the figs.}).
Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 14, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the compression of the at least one compressive element is approximately proportional to the tensile stress experienced by the mooring component above the second stress value of the tensile stress (See at least: fig. 3, response curves 2, 6 and 7 both where in the third stage of compression where the curves represent an equation that shows approx. proportionality in the slope in the stage {Examiner note: interpretation of this claim is proportionality of mathematics where approx. proportional is the line in the specific stage is representative of an equation where the slope represents a proportionality constant between the x-axis and y-axis.}).
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein a gradient of the stress-strain curve of the at least one compressive element is positive for all stress values of the tensile stress above the second stress value (See at least: fig. 3 where the slope of the curve shows positive in the x-axis (%) and y-axis (kN)).
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the additional compression of the at least one compressive element during the third stage of compression is less than 10% of the uncompressed length of the at least one compressive element (See at least: fig. 3 for response 6).
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Johnston does not disclose claim 18.
Bajeli et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one compressive element is formed from at least two materials having different mechanical properties (rubber, plastic; See at least: col. 2 lines 27-31 “whereas the members 10 can be constructed of any known deformable material suitable for the purpose, preferably rubber having a Shore hardness of between 50 and 90 and maintaining its characteristics unaltered within a temperature range of -30.degree. C. to +80.degree. C” and claim 2 “elastically deformable material is plastic”).
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the mooring component is formed from at least one polymer material (See at least: fig. 2 “polymer component”).
Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Johnston does not disclose claim 20.
Bajeli et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one compressive element (elastic body (3): See at least figs. 1-2) is formed integrally as a single piece (not explicitly disclosed; See at least: MPEP 2144.V.B “Making Integral” where making a one-piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice).
Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses wherein the mooring component exhibits a non-plastic response during the first and second stages of compression (See at least: fig. 3, response curve 7).
Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Johnston does not disclose claim 22 (See at least: fig. 2).
Bajeli et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a first inner plate (discs 5; See at least: figs. 1-2), connected to one end of the at least one compressive element (See at least: figs. 1-2, where each end has one disc 5), a second inner plate (discs 5; See at least: figs. 1-2) connected to the other end of the at least one compressive element (See at least: figs. 1-2, where each end has one disc 5), a first outer plate (stiffening bar 6; See at least: figs. 1-2) adjacent to the first inner plate for connecting to a first portion of a mooring line (See at least: col. 2 lines 44-45 “the mooring lines are connected” and figs. 1-2 with col. 2 lines 2-4 “Furthermore, between the head 4 and the disc 5 there is fixed a spacer and stiffening bar 6.” where the stiffing bar 6 fixed to the head 4 is for connecting to the mooring line), a second outer plate (stiffening bar 6; See at least: figs. 1-2) adjacent to the second inner plate for connecting to a second portion of a mooring line (See at least: col. 2 lines 44-45 “the mooring lines are connected” and figs. 1-2 with col. 2 lines 2-4 “Furthermore, between the head 4 and the disc 5 there is fixed a spacer and stiffening bar 6.” where the stiffing bar 6 fixed to the head 4 is for connecting to the mooring line), a first connecting member (arms 2A, threaded portion 7 and nut 8; See at least: figs. 1-2) connected to the first inner plate and the second outer plate (See at least: figs. 1-2), and a second connecting member (arms 1A, threaded portion 7 and nut 8; See at least: figs. 1-2) connected to the second inner plate and the first outer plate (See at least: figs. 1-2).
Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 23, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as noted above.
However, Johnston does not disclose claim 23 (See at least: fig. 2).
Bajeli et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first connecting member (arms 2A, threaded portion 7 and nut 8; See at least: figs. 1-2) comprises a first connecting rod (arms 2A; See at least: figs. 1-2) and the second connecting member (arms 1A, threaded portion 7 and nut 8; See at least: figs. 1-2) comprises a second connecting rod (arms 1A; See at least: figs. 1-2); or wherein the first connecting member comprises a first connecting rope and the second connecting member comprises a second connecting rope; or wherein the first connecting member comprises a first connecting chain and the second connecting member comprises a second connecting chain.
Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 24, Johnston in view of Bajeli et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Johnston discloses a mooring system comprising: the mooring component of claim 1 (See at least: claim 1 rejection above) the mooring component of a mooring line (See at least: fig. 6 and page 3 of 7, Section IV.E Software “mooring line/chain), wherein the mooring component is arranged between a first section of the mooring line and a second section of the mooring line (See at least: figs. 2 and 6 where the combination teaches the arrangement between two different sections of mooring line), such that tensile stress applied to the mooring line acts to compress the at least one compressive element (See at least: fig. 3) and causes the overall length of the mooring system to increase.
However, Johnston does not disclose and causes the overall length of the mooring system to increase (See at least: fig. 2, where the interior metal work is not shown and where it is only shown in an uncompressed state).
Bajeli et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches such that tensile stress applied to the mooring line acts to compress the at least one compressive element (elastic body (3) and at least two rigid elements (1, 2); See at least: figs. 1-2) and causes the overall length of the mooring system to increase (a device; See at least: figs. 1-2 and col. 1 lines 59-67 “...a central elastic body 3 arranged to oppose the movement of the two elements 1, 2 in the opposing directions D1 and D2 respectively.”).
Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
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 ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights