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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sensor collecting device” in claim 29, (generic term: “device,” functional language: “sensor collecting,” associated with a box, connected to sensors [0060,0064].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13,16-17,20,25-31,35,36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 13-15, 17, 19-28 of copending Application No. 18/261495 (reference application) in view of Plunkett et al. (US 4,629,119). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 13 of the present application is drawn to a coating device for coating components, comprising: a) at least one electrical consumer which requires electrical energy for operation, b) a transmission system for wireless transmission of the electrical energy required for operation of the at least one consumer to the consumer and/or for transmission of data from and/or to the at least one consumer, and Claim 13 of ‘495 requires a coating device for coating components with a coating agent (compare with present Claim 30) under high voltage during operation (compare present Claims 14 and 27), and a transmission system for transmitting data between sensors (also consumers, compare present Claims 29 and 35). Claim 19 of ‘495 includes every feature of Claim 13 and also recites that the transmission system operates wirelessly, while the transmission systems of Claim 20 of ‘495 are also recited as the transmission systems of present Claim 19 (a) inductive coupling, b) resonant-inductive coupling, c) capacitive coupling). Further, ‘495 includes “the coating device comprises an electrically grounded zone” (“unprotected area which is at earth potential during operation,” ‘495, Claim 13), b) the coating device comprises a high-voltage zone which is under high voltage during operation of the coating device (protected area which is under high voltage, ‘495, Claim 13), c) the consumer is arranged within the high-voltage zone (“sensors in the protected area, ‘495’, Claim 13), and d) the transmission system transmits the electrical energy required to operate the consumer from the electrically grounded zone into the high-voltage zone (“power supply for the data interface is arranged in the unprotected area,” “sensors are arranged in the protected area,” “the collecting device f1) is being arranged in the protected area,” “the data interface being arranged in the unprotected area,” “a transmission system for transmitting data between the sensors in the protected area on the one hand and the data interface in the unprotected area on the other hand,” “transmission system operates wirelessly in order to effect an electrical potential separation between the data interface and the collecting device,” ‘the transmission system operates wirelessly by means of one of the following techniques: a) an inductive coupling, b) a resonant-inductive coupling, c) a capacitive coupling,” and “the transmission system, in addition to transmitting the data, also supplies the electrical energy for operating the sensors to the collecting device so that the collecting device can suppl the sensors with the electrical energy required for operation, Claims 13-14 and 19-20). ‘495 fails to claim an insulating partition wall separating an electrically grounded zone from the high-voltage zone. However, it would have been obvious to include an electrically insulating partition wall to separate an electrically grounded zone from the high-voltage zone as a safety feature to avoid shock as suggested by US’119 (Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-17).
Additionally, compare present Claim 16 and ‘495, Claims 13-14.
Compare present Claim 18 and ‘495, Claim 14.
Compare present Claim 19 and ‘495, Claim 20
Compare present Claim 20 and ‘495, Claim 21
Compare present Claim 25 and ‘495, Claim 14
Regarding present Claim 26, the categories of transmitted data are considered aspects of an intended use and are not given patentable weight for the claimed system (apparatus). Moreover, the types of data are conventional.
Compare present Claims 27-28, and ‘495, Claims 22-26
Compare present Claim 29 and ‘495, Claim 13
Compare present Claim 30 and ‘495, Claim 26
Compare present Claim 31 and ‘495, Claims 22,25. ‘495 requires a distal and proximal arm, but not a hand; however, a hand is a prima facie obvious duplication of an arm part.
Compare present Claim 35 and ‘495, Claims 13-15 (sensor is a consumer) and Claim 21 (transmitter, receiver are consumers)
Compare present Claim 36 and ‘495, Claim 28
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13,15-29,31, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 2010/0147215) in view of Plunkett et al. (US 4,629,119).
Regarding Claim 13, Baumann et al. (US’215) teach a coating device for coating components, comprising: an electrically grounded zone (see ground at bottom of Fig. 1;[0026-0027,0029-0030]) , b) the coating device comprises a high-voltage zone which is under high voltage during operation of the coating device (Abstract; [0004,0016]); at least one electrical consumer which requires electrical energy for operation arranged within a high-voltage zone (coating robot, sprayer, and or components of the high-voltage zone) (Abstract), b) a transmission system (e.g., including, inductive transmitter coils T1,T2,T3) for wireless (inductive) transmission of the electrical energy required for operation of the at least one consumer to the consumer (Fig. 1; [0019,0030]). US’215 also teaches a transmission system for wireless transmission of electrical energy required for transmission of data from or to the at least one consumer (e.g. optical fibers, radio links, sound signals) [0017]. US’215 also teaches a transmission system for wireless transmission of data with electrical-to-optical transducers and by radio transmission (Figs. 3-4; [0033-0040]). The consumer is arranged within the high-voltage zone (Fig. 1), and the transmission system transmits the electrical energy required to operate the consumer from the electrically grounded zone into the high-voltage zone (Fig. 1; [0025,0029]), since clearly there is a potential difference between ground and high voltage in area outlined as “1,” representing “consumer” and at high voltage during operation (Fig. 1; [0018]). US’215 also teaches an electrically grounded zone (other components [0026]) and an electrically grounded zone (housing 12) [0029] and an electrically grounded zone (grounded primary coil [0030] and an electrically grounded zone outside the coating machine [0040]. US’215 fails to teach an electrically insulating partition wall separating the electrically grounded zone from the high-voltage zone. Plunket et al. (US’119) is analogous art in the field of electrostatic sprayers and electrostatic coating processes and suggests an insulating partition wall to separate a high-voltage zone from a ground zone to protect from accidental shock (Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-17; col. 8, lines 38-46). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the coating apparatus of US’215 with an electrically insulating partition wall separating the electrically grounded zone from the high-voltage zone, because US’119 suggests such a wall for protection from accidental shock.
Regarding Claim 15, in US’215 the transmission system is capable of transmitting the electrical energy required to operate the consumer directly to the consumer via the coils (see rejection of Claim 13 above for citations).
Regarding Claim 16, in US’215 the coating device comprises a zone which is capable of being explosion proof [0041], and is considered an intended use recitation, not given patentable weight, since the intended use includes conditions not recited as aspects of the claimed device itself. US’215 teaches that the consumer is arranged with a zone, capable of being explosion proof and the transmission system is capable of transmitting electrical energy required to operate the consumer in area 1 (Fig. 1) from outside an explosion proof zone into the explosion proof zone [0041].
Regarding Claim 17, in US’215 the zone, capable of being explosion proof, is an enclosed space (e.g. booth, cabinet outside booth) within the coating device [0041]).
Regarding Claim 18, in US’215 the transmission system is capable of transmitting the electrical energy required to operate the consumer directly to the consumer via the coils (see rejections of Claims 13 and 16 above for citations).
Regarding Claim 19, in US’215 the transmission system of operates with an inductive coupling (transformers T1-T3) (Fig. 1) and/ or optical coupling (Figs. 3-4; [0033-0034]).
Regarding Claim 20, in US’215 the transmission system comprises: a) a transmitting coil arranged in the electrically grounded zone, since the primary coil can be in a zone of ground potential [0030] and b) a receiving coil arranged in the high-voltage zone (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, in US’215 the transmission system comprises: a) a transmitting coil capable of being arranged outside the explosion-proof zone, and b) a receiving coil arranged in the explosion-proof zone; the term “explosion-proof” is an aspect of an intended use which depends on process parameters, not given significant weight for the claimed apparatus. In addition, see rejections of Claims 16-17 above for further explanation and citations).
Regarding Claim 22, US’215 teaches that a high-voltage proof insulating section is arranged between the transmitting coil and the receiving coil for electrically insulating the transmitting coil from the receiving coil (implied by the teaching of “isolating transformer which has a sufficient isolation distance or other isolation device between the primary and secondary circuits: (Abstract; [0016,0019]), and US’119 teaches an insulating wall between a high voltage section and a ground region as protection from shock. It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of US’215 with an insulating wall between grounded parts and high-voltage parts, including between a transmitting coil and a receiving coil as a component of the insulating section of US’215 to protect from shock hazard.
Regarding Claims 23-24, US’215 teaches that the transmission system comprises a rectifier, connected to the receiving coil (secondary coil) and arranged in the high-voltage zone (Fig. 1; converter/ rectifier symbols, including transducers 3, 5, and 9; [0020,0023,0025) (also explosion proof zone, which is also an intended use aspect, not given significant patentable weight, since it requires process parameters, not part of the claimed system, which is capable of being explosion proof). US’215 also teaches supplying AC current, an oscillating current, in lines 2 to the transmitting coil (primary coil) outside an explosion proof zone, since US’215 teaches that it is the high voltage area which needs to be explosion proof (Fig. 1; [0020,0041]). US’215 additionally suggests electronic components which convert DC voltage to AC voltage within Area 1 [0021], which would have suggested an oscillator circuit to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of US’215 in view of US’119 fails to teach that the AC current supplied to the transmitting coil (primary coil) is generated by an oscillator. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use an oscillator to supply AC current to lines 2 and to the transmitting coil, because oscillators were conventional at the time of invention, and because US’215 suggests that a circuit can convert DC to AC, suggesting that an oscillator can be used to supply AC where it is required.
Regarding Claim 25, US’215 teaches that the transmission system is set up both for wireless transmission of the electrical energy required for operating the consumer and for transmission of data from and/or to the consumer (see rejections of Claim 13 above and [0033-0040].
Regarding Claim 26, US’215 teaches various paths, link, and busses capable of transmitting all the recited categories of data (e.g. field bus) [0009,0017,0035-0040]. The recited categories of data are not given patentable weight, since they are aspects of an intended use and produced by an intended use, rather than a structural feature of the claimed system (apparatus), and the system as claimed is capable of sending the claimed data types.
Regarding Claim 27, US’215 teaches that the coating device comprises a coating robot with at least one robot arm (Fig. 2; [0029]), and b) a high-voltage zone is arranged at least partially in the robot arm [0030], and c) an electrically grounded zone is arranged at least partially in the robot arm [0030], and d) an insulating (also, implied by “isolation transformer,” “isolation distance,” “galvanically isolated,” and “isolation device”) section separates the electrically grounded zone from the high-voltage zone and is arranged in the robot arm (Claims 7-9; [0008,0016-0017,0030,0032,0040-0041]). US’119 teaches an insulating wall between a high voltage section and a ground region as protection from shock. It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of US’215 with an insulating wall between grounded parts and high-voltage parts where needed for shock protection.
Regarding Claim 28, US’215 teaches that a) the transmitting coil and the receiving coil are arranged in the robot arm, and b) the consumer (e.g. sprayer, sensor, actuator) is arranged in the robot arm (Claim 16, 17; Figs. 1-2; [0009,0017,0023,0024]).
Regarding Claim 29, US’215 teaches multiple sensors [0003,0009,0017,0023], networks [0035], and busses (e.g. field bus) [0035]. US’215 also teaches bus connection modules for field bus systems [0003]. US’215 fails to clearly teach a box (see claim interpretation above, “sensor collecting device” is associated with a box, connected to the sensors). However, it was conventional to connect multiple sensors to a box or its functional equivalent (e.g. hub, chamber, router, field bus box, junction box) at the time of invention to organize electrical components and sensor input). It would have been obvious at the time of invention to connect sensors to a centralized box (hub, junction box, field bus box, etc.), because teachings of US’215 concerning a network and a field bus would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art conventional structures like junction boxes, hubs, and field bus boxes) for the sensors and busses.
Regarding Claim 31, US’215 teaches the robot comprises a proximal robot arm, a distal robot arm and a robot hand (wrist) axis (Fig. 2; [0002,0018,0029]).
Regarding Claim 34, the robot of US’215 with arms can be considered a surface machine or surface automat.
Regarding Claim 35, US’215 teaches all of a sensor, an electrically actuated valve, a transmitter for sending data, and a receiver for receiving data [0003,0017,0023,0032-0041].
Claim(s) 30, 32-33, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 2010/0147215) in view of Plunkett et al. (US 4,629,119) as applied to Claims 13 and 31 above, and further in view of De Fusco (US 4,244,527).
Regarding Claim 30, US’215 teaches an electrostatic coating device (sprayer) and a high voltage circuit (Abstract). The combination of US’215 in view of US’119 fails to teach specifically a high voltage cascade. High voltage cascade is old art and was conventional for electrostatic spray coating devices at the time of invention. For example, De Fusco (US’527), published in 1981, teaches an electrostatic sprayer with high voltage produced by a high-voltage cascade (col. 2, lines 48-55). It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of the combination of US’215 in view of US’119 with old and conventional art, including a high-voltage cascade, to provide the high voltage for the electrostatic sprayer of US’215.
Regarding Claims 32-33, US’215 teaches the transformer or a transformer coil in the body of the robot arm, including distal arm 10 (between proximal arm 16 and wrist joint just before sprayer 11) (Fig. 2; [0028,0030]) and teaches that the distal arm is made of insulating material [0018]. Moreover, an electrical consumer as recited can be mapped to any part of the coating device which receives data or electrical energy wirelessly, which can, in particular, include any element within rectangle 1 in Fig. 1 and any device which receives a wireless signal (e.g. those taught in [0032-0041]). Moreover, US’215 teaches sensors, actuators, and control systems all of which require electricity and sensors and actuators receive signals and/ or data, preferably wirelessly [0017]. Furthermore, the sensors are at high voltage [0023], and the front arm (i.e. distal arm) is at high voltage [0018]. US’215 fails to teach explicitly that the consumer is located in the distal arm. However, the teachings that the distal arm is at high voltage, that the sensor is in the high voltage region, and that other components in area 1, including transformer coils, are located in the distal arm would have suggested to the ordinary person to modify the apparatus of US’215 by placing all recited components in the distal arm (insulating section). Moreover, the recited positioning of all the recited elements in the distal arm is a prima facie obvious rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04. US’119 teaches an insulating wall between a high voltage section and a ground region as protection from shock. It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of US’215 with an insulating wall between grounded parts and high-voltage parts where needed for shock protection.
Regarding Claim 36, US’215 teaches all of a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, a speed sensor, and a temperature sensor [0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 6 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 26-28,30-33, and 36 under 35 USC 112(b) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection of Claims 26-28,30-33, and 36 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 6 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-22,25-28,31, and 34-35 under 35 USC 102 has been fully considered and overcomes the previous rejection under this paragraph. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment, which raises additional issues under 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 March 2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 13 and 15-36 under 35 USC 103 and double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has not provided an argument against double patenting.
In response to Applicant’s argument that US’215 does not disclose an electrically insulating partition wall between a high voltage zone and a grounded zone, US’119 is now cited to show the obviousness of an insulating wall separating a high voltage zone from a grounded zone as a safety feature to protect from accidental shock.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights