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 .
Election/Restriction
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 33, in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 4, 8, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 32, and 33 are allowable. The restriction requirement between Groups I – VIII, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 16 December 2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 16 December 2025 is partially withdrawn. Claims 34 – 42, directed to a method of producing a sports field (claims 34 and 35), a shock pad (claims 36 and 37), a method of producing a shock pad (claim 38), a method of using a shock pad (claim 39), and uses of a shock pad (claims 40 – 42) are
no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim 43, directed to use of a lignin component, is withdrawn from consideration because it does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 recites “shockpad”. The examiner recommends “shock pad” to maintain consistency with the remainder of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 40 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because each of claims 40 – 42 defines a “use” claim without defining a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It should be noted MPEP § 2173.05(q), states the following, in relevant part, regarding “use” claims:
"Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 "). In Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967), the Board held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: "The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction." In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the district court held the following claim was definite, but that it was not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101: "The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid."
Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim.
Accordingly, each of claims 40 – 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 5 – 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 – 18, 20 – 25, 28 – 31, and 40 – 42 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claims 5 – 7, 9 – 12, 14 – 18, 20 – 25, and 29 - 31 recite broad recitations as highlighted below, and these claims also recite at least one narrower statement of the range/limitation as follows:
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “an average carboxylic acid group content of less than 1.8 groups per macromolecule considering the M_n wt. average of component (i)”, and the claim also recites “less than 1.4”, “less than 1.1”, “less than 0.7”, and “less than 0.4” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a content of phenolic groups of 0.3 to 2.5 mmol/g”, and the claim also recites “0.5 to 2.0 mmol/g” and “0.5 to 1.5 mmol/g” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a content of aliphatic OH groups of 1.0 to 8.0 mmol/g”, and the claim also recites “1.5 to 6.0 mmol/g” and “2.0 to 5.0 mmol/g” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the molar ratio of NH4+ to Ca2+ is in the range of 5:1 to 1:5”, and the claim also recites “3:1 to 1:3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “the aqueous binder composition comprises component (i) in an amount of 50 to 98 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites “65 to 98 wt.-%” and “80 to 98 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “multifunctional organic amines”, and the claim also recites “an alkanolamine” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “diamines”, and the claim also recites “hexamethyldiamine” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “epoxy compounds having a molecular weight of more than 500”, and the claim also recites “an epoxidised oil based on fatty acid triglyceride or one or more flexible oligomer or polymer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The recitation “one or more flexible oligomer or polymer” is also further more narrowly stated with “a low Tg acrylic based polymer”, “a low Tg vinyl based polymer”, and “a low Tg polyether”, which in turn are further more narrowly stated to contain “reactive functional groups” narrowed by “carbodiimide groups”, “anhydride groups”, “oxazoline groups”, “amino groups”, and “epoxy groups”.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “polyester polyols”, and the claim also recites “polycaprolactone” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “multifunctional carbodiimides”, and the claim also recites “aliphatic multifunctional carbodiimides” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “melamine based cross-linkers”, and the claim also recites “hexakis(methylmethoxy)melamine (HMMM) based cross-linkers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “comprising component (ii) in an amount of 1 to 50 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites “4 to 20 wt.-%” and “6 to 12 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “β-hydroxyalkylamide-cross-linkers”, and the claim also recites “N-(2-hydroxyisopropyl)amide-cross-linkers”, “N-(2-hydroxyethyl)amide-cross-linkers”, “N-(2-hydroxyethyl)adipamide-cross-linkers”, and “N,N,N’,N’-tetrakis(2-hydroxyethyl)adipamide” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “multifunctional organic amines”, and the claim also recites “alkanolamine diamines” and “hexamethyldiamine” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “epoxy compounds having a molecular weight of more than 500”, and the claim also recites “an epoxidised oil based on fatty acid triglyceride or one or more flexible oligomer or polymer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The recitation “one or more flexible oligomer or polymer” is also further more narrowly stated with “a low Tg acrylic based polymer”, “a low Tg vinyl based polymer”, and “a low Tg polyether”, which in turn are further more narrowly stated to contain “reactive functional groups” narrowed by “carbodiimide groups”, “anhydride groups”, “oxazoline groups”, “amino groups”, and “epoxy groups”.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “multifunctional carbodiimides”, and the claim also recites “aliphatic multifunctional carbodiimides” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “β-hydroxyalkylamide-cross-linkers”, and the claim also recites “N-(2-hydroxyisopropyl)amide-cross-linkers”, “N-(2-hydroxyethyl)amide-cross-linkers”, “N-(2-hydroxyethyl)adipamide-cross-linkers”, and “N,N,N’,N’-tetrakis(2-hydroxyethyl)adipamide” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “comprising component (ii) in an amount of 2 to 90 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites “6 to 60 wt.-%”, “10 to 40 wt.-%”, and “25 to 40 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “fatty alcohols [and] monohydroxy alcohols”, and the claim also recites “pentanol” and “stearyl alcohol” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “alkoxylates”, and the claim also recites “ethoxylates” and “butanol ethoxylates” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The recitation “butanol ethoxylates” is further narrowed by “butoxytriglycol”.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “phenol derivatives”, and the claim also recites “alkyl or aryl substituted phenols” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “sulfates”, and the claim also recites “alkyl sulfates” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “sulfonates”, and the claim also recites “alkyl aryl sulfonates” and “alkyl sulfonates” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “phosphates”, and the claim also recites “tripolyphosphates” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “monomeric amides”, and the claim also recites “acetamides” and “benzamide” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “fatty acid amides”, and the claim also recites “tall oil amides” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “quaternary ammonium compounds”, and the claim also recites “trimethylglycine” and “distearylmethylammoniumchloride” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “vegetable oils”, and the claim also recites “castor oil”, “palm oil”, “linseed oil”, and “soybean oil” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “polyols”, and the claim also recites “glycerol” and “1,1,1-Tris(hydroxymethyl)propane” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “one or more plasticizers having a boiling point of 100 to 380 °C”, and the claim also recites “120 to 300 °C” and “140 to 250 °C” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “one or more polyethylene glycols having an average molecular weight of 150 to 50000 g/mol”, and the claim also recites “150 to 4000 g/mol”, “150 to 1000 g/mol”, “150 to 500 g/mol”, and “200 to 400 g/mol” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “the component (iii) is present in an amount of 0.5 to 60…wt.-%”, and the claim also recites “2.5 to 25” and “3 to 15” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “coupling agents”, and the claim also recites “organofunctional silanes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “bases”, and the claim also recites “ammonia”, “alkali metal hydroxides”, “KOH”, “earth alkaline metal hydroxides”, “amines”, and “salts thereof” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The recitation “earth alkaline metal hydroxides” is further narrowed by “Ca(OH)2” and “Mg(OH)2”.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a further component in the form of urea”, and the claim also recites “in an amount 5 to 40 wt.-%”, “10 to 30 wt.-%”, and “15 to 25 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “a thickness in the range of 12 mm to 60 mm”, and the claim also recites “15 mm to 40 mm”, “20 to 35 mm”, and “23 to 30 mm” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites the broad recitation “a density in the range of 175 kg/m3 to 300 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “220 kg/m3 to 280 kg/m3” and “275 kg/m3” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “a hydraulic conductivity of 5 m/day to 200 m/day”, and the claim also recites “10 m/day to 50 m/day” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites the broad recitation “a geometric fibre diameter of 1.5 to 10 microns”, and the claim also recites “2 to 8 microns” and “2 to 5 microns” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
To this end, the examiner notes the claims recite phrases that do not definitively indicate whether the recited narrower limitations form a feature of the claim.
Regarding claims 5 – 7, 11, 12, 14 – 18, 23 – 25, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 9, 21, and 25, the phrases “in particular” and “more particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 20 – 22 and 28 – 31, the phrases “preferably”, “more preferably”, “more preferred” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For claims 2 – 4, 8, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 32, and 33, the examiner recommends revising these claims by (1) reciting a single numerical range, (2) reciting only the genus or desired species for compositions, or (3) limiting the genus recited to selected species. In all cases, “such as”, “in particular”, “more particular”, “preferably”, “more preferably”, “more preferred”, or any grammatical equivalent thereof should also be removed.
As an example of (1), claim 5 currently recites “an average carboxylic acid group content of less than 1.8 groups per macromolecule considering the M_n wt. average of component (i), such as less than 1.4 such as less than 1.1 such as less than 0.7 such as less than 0.4”. A recitation to a single numerical range in claim 5 would read as “an average carboxylic acid group content of less than 1.8 groups per macromolecule considering the M_n wt. average of component (i)
As another example of (2) and (3), claim 18 recites “one or more plasticizers selected from the group consisting of sulfates such as alkyl sulfates, sulfonates such as alkyl aryl sulfonates such as alkyl sulfonates, phosphates such as tripolyphosphates”. To be consistent with (2), claim 18 at this recitation could read as “one or more plasticizers selected from the group consisting of sulfates and phosphates and tripolyphosphates”.
To be consistent with (3), claim 18 at this recitation could have “sulfonates such as alkyl aryl sulfonates such as alkyl sulfonates” read as “sulfonates selected from the group consisting of alkyl aryl sulfonates and alkyl sulfonates”.
For the sake of brevity, similar recommendations are made with respect to claims 2 – 4, 8, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 32, and 33.
In addition to, or alternatively to, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are made:
Regarding claims 40 – 42, each of claims 40 – 42 defines a “use”. MPEP § 2173.05(q), states the following, in relevant part, regarding “use” claims:
Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim.
In the case of claims 40 – 42, the examiner observes no method steps are outlined for the recited “use” in each of these claims.
Given the rejections of claims 40 – 42 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons outlined previously in this Office Action, if a method of use is intended, the examiner recommends revision of these claims to read as a method of use while also defining one or more method steps of how to use the shock pad recited. The examiner notes claim 39 serves as a template for such a recitation.
Alternatively, a product can be defined. For instance, claim 1 serves as a template for a combination claim of a sports field comprising a shock pad, and claim 36 serves as a template for a sub-combination claim of a shock pad.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4, 8, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, and 32 – 39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 36 is directed to a shock pad
Tetrault ‘811 (US 2012/0258811 A1) discloses a shock pad comprising a coherent plate having upper and lower surfaces, wherein the coherent plate comprises at least one coherent layer (“layer of shock absorbing material”: e.g. ¶¶ [0212], [0213]) comprising man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) (“woven or non-woven fiberglass”: e.g. ¶ [0090]) bonded with a cured aqueous binder composition, wherein the aqueous binder composition prior to curing comprises a component (i) in the form of “lignin sulfonate” (e.g. ¶ [0051]) and a component (ii) in the form of one or more cross-linkers (e.g. ¶¶ [0054], [0092], [0093], [0096]).
Tetrault ‘459 (US 2014/0322459 A1) is related to Tetrault ‘811 and therefore further discussion is omitted for the sake brevity.
Tetrault ‘811 is not explicit as to the aqueous binder composition being free of phenol and formaldehyde. Tetrault ‘811 is also not explicit as to the carboxylic acid group content of the lignosulfonate lignin.
Crescimanno (US 2011/0159768 A1) discloses components in the form of one or more lignosulfonate lignins having a carboxylic acid group (e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0070]).
In particular, Crescimanno discloses the lignosulfonate lignins are formed by grafting an ethylenically unsaturated carboxy acid monomer in an amount of, e.g. 1 to 50 wt%, based on the weight of the grafted lignosulfonate lignins (e.g. ¶ [0012]). For an acid Crescimanno discloses such as acrylic acid (abbreviated “AA” below: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0034]), whose molecular formula is CH2CHCOOH and molecular weight is about 72 g/mol, this corresponds to a carboxylic acid group content of
1
g
A
A
100
g
t
o
t
a
l
1
m
o
l
A
A
72
g
A
A
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
A
A
1000
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
≈
0.139
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
/
g
to
50
g
A
A
100
g
t
o
t
a
l
1
m
o
l
A
A
72
g
A
A
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
A
A
1000
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
≈
6.94
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
/
g
Crescimanno also discloses methacrylic acid can be used (abbreviated “MAA” below: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0034]) whose molecular formula is CH2C(CH3)COOH and molecular weight is about 86 g/mol, this corresponds to a carboxylic acid group content of
1
g
M
A
A
100
g
t
o
t
a
l
1
m
o
l
A
A
86
g
A
A
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
A
A
1000
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
≈
0.116
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
/
g
to
50
g
M
A
A
100
g
t
o
t
a
l
1
m
o
l
A
A
86
g
A
A
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
A
A
1000
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
1
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
≈
5.81
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
/
g
Crescimanno discloses these compositions are combined with crosslinker (e.g. ¶ [0056]) to form the aqueous binder composition.
However, Crescimanno does not disclose use thereof in shock pads, much less shock pads for sports fields. At best, Crescimanno discloses use in flooring or carpet backing (e.g. ¶ [0015]), which the examiner finds do not sufficiently describe any particular requirement for shock.
Johanssen (EP 3,632,866 A1, which Applicant cites in an information disclosure statement submitted 6 October 2023) also discloses lignosulfonate lignins (e.g. ¶¶ [0010] – [0159] having a carboxylic acid group having a carboxylic acid group content of 0.05 to 10 mmol/g based on the dry weight of the lignosulfonate lignin (e.g. ¶¶ [0042], [0095], [0096], [0156]).
Johanssen discloses use in flooring applications or other applications where vibration damping is present (e.g. ¶ [0119]) but does not mention utility with respect to shock.
Therefore, neither Crescimanno nor Johanssen can be combined with Tetrault ‘811.
De Vries (WO 2020/104523 A1, which Applicant cites in an information disclosure statement submitted 6 October 2023) also discloses shock pads but does not disclose lignosulfonate lignins. The same issues with respect to Crescimanno and Johanssen also apply
For these reasons, claim 36 is allowed.
Claim 1 is directed to a sports field comprising, in relevant part, a shock pad layer, wherein the shock pad layer comprises at least one shock pad comprising a coherent plate having the same features recited in claim 36. Accordingly, claim 1 is allowed for the same reasons as claim 36.
Claim 34 is a method of producing a sports field, wherein the method recited includes all of the features of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 34 is allowed for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 38 is directed to a method of producing a shock pad, wherein the method recited includes all of the features of claim 36. Accordingly, claim 38 is allowed for at least the same reasons as claim 36.
Claim 39 is directed to a method of using a shock pad, wherein the method recited includes all of the features of claim 36. Accordingly, claim 39 is allowed for at least the same reasons as claim 36.
Claims 2 – 4, 8, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 32, and 33 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1.
Claim 35 depends directly on claim 34.
Claim 37 depends directly on claim 36.
A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph.
Accordingly, claims 2 – 4, 8, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, and 37 are allowed for at least the same reason as their respective independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 5 – 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 – 18, 20 – 25, and 28 – 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights