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 .
Examiner’s Notes
37 CFR 1.121(c) requires that each claim document must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending claims, and cancelled claim numbers preceding the status identifier ‘(canceled)’. It is noted that the latest set of claims filed fails to include claims 30-31 with associated status indicators. Given claims 30-31 were withdrawn previously, as directed to a non-elected invention, and all other previously withdrawn claims have been cancelled, the examiner will treat these claims as cancelled. In future claim sets, the applicant should include claim numbers 30 and 31, with their status indicator as (canceled) adjacent the number. Should the applicant wish to reintroduce the subject matter of previously withdrawn claims 30 and 31 into the claims, they may do so by adding new claims with identical subject matter, though they will be withdrawn, as the previous were, based on the previous election.
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 34-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25, first line on Pg 5: “pressed against each, wherein” should read –pressed against each other, wherein--
Claim 34, line 2: “the passage” should read –passage--.
Claim 35, line 2: “the passage” should read –passage--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 25, 28-29, and 32-35 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses the word ‘means’, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In accordance with the statute, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element “locomotion means” in claim 25 is limited by the description in the specification. Specifically, “locomotion means” will be limited to its description in the specification as wheels, skis, and equivalents thereof (¶0040). Claims 25, 28-29, 32, and 34-35 will be limited by this interpretation. Claim 33 applies structure to the locomotion means, so ‘locomotion means’ will not be interpreted under 112(f) for the sake of claim 33.
In accordance with the statute, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element “additional locomotion means” in claim 35 is limited by the description in the specification. Specifically, “locomotion means” will be limited to its description in the specification as wheels, skis, and equivalents thereof (¶0040). For the sake of claim 35 alone, this phrase will be interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Given the entire and exact language of claims 28 and 29 have, with this latest amendment, been incorporated into claim 25, on which claims 28 and 29 depend, claims 28-29 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 25, and are thusly rejected under 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25, 28-29, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geiersbach (US 4428150, as cited on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter referred to as Geiersbach, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 25:
Geiersbach discloses an applicator for applying electrical current into a plant (trailer 12, Fig 1), the applicator arranged to be carried by a moving carrier (tractor 10, Fig 1), characterized by comprising:
at least one insulating support structure (components of invention shown in Fig 1 with the exception of the electrodes, as detailed below, and the tractor 10, the support structure including insulative tubular support rod 20’ – insulative per Col 3, lines 50-52) comprising a connecting member for attaching the applicator to the moving carrier (see annotated Fig 1 below) and locomotion means for moving the applicator along with the carrier (per Col 2, lines 55-60, the trailer vehicle 12 is ‘wheeled’); and
PNG
media_image1.png
348
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least two conductive electrodes attached to the insulating support structure (spring leaves 36, Fig 3A) and electrically connectable to a terminal of an electrical power source (see Fig 6-7), the at least two conductive electrodes comprising a contacting surface for contacting the plant as the applicator is moved by the carrier, wherein a length of the contacting surface extends in a movement direction and is greater than a width of the contacting surface (contact surface is outer surface of spring leaves 36, see Fig 3a and Fig 1 for dimensionality and directionality, length being greater than width);
wherein each of the at least two conductive electrodes comprises a flat region vertically disposed (see annotated Fig 1 below; has vertical dimensionality per Fig 3a), wherein the flat regions face each other forming an aperture between them for contacting the plant (see annotated Fig 1 below); and
PNG
media_image2.png
842
935
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least two conductive electrodes are inclined with respect to each other (see Fig 1), and a width of the aperture gradually decreases along a length of the electrodes (see Fig 1; width is greatest, furthest from mounting collars 30, and gradually decreases in direction of mounting collars 30);
wherein each of the at least two conductive electrodes comprises a curved region in a front portion thereof that extends outward from the flat region (see annotated Fig 1 below); and
PNG
media_image3.png
584
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least two conductive electrodes are pressed against each other, wherein the at least two conductive electrodes are configured to move away from each other when contacting the plant and are configured to return to a position in which the at least two conductive electrodes are pressed against each other when the plant is released (functional language: due to the spring nature of the electrodes, and in light of Col 3, lines 30-40, and Figs 1-2, the electrodes are capable of acting as such).
Regarding claim 28:
Geiersbach discloses the limitations of claim 25 above and further discloses wherein the at least two conductive electrodes are inclined with respect to each other (see Fig 1), and the width of the aperture gradually decreases along a length of the electrodes (see Fig 1; width is greatest, furthest from mounting collars 30, and gradually decreases in direction of mounting collars 30).
Regarding claim 29:
Geiersbach discloses the limitations of claim 28 above and further discloses wherein each of the at least two conductive electrodes comprises a curved region that extends outward from the flat region (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
584
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33:
Geiersbach discloses the limitations of claim 25 above and further discloses that the locomotion means are wheels or skis (per Col 2, lines 55-60, the trailer vehicle 12 is ‘wheeled’).
Regarding claim 34:
Geiersbach discloses the limitations of claim 25 above and further discloses wherein the support structure comprises a rear portion comprising a gap for allowing the passage of the plant, wherein the locomotion means are attached to the rear portion of the support structure (see annotated Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
465
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiersbach, as applied to claim 25 above, in view of Laronze (FR 2497633, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Laronze, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 32:
Geiersbach discloses the limitations of claim 25 above.
Geiersbach fails to disclose wherein the applicator comprises insulating mats for protecting the at least two conductive electrodes.
Laronze discloses a tractor carried weed destroyer with separately supplied electrode sections (first central part 8 and two lateral parts 6 and 7, Fig 6) separated by insulating mats (panels 9 of insulating material, Fig 6), for protecting the electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator of Geiersbach to include insulating panels between the separately supplied (via insulating wires 44) paired electrode groups, as in Laronze, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to prevent arc flashovers between neighboring electrodes, should a potential difference be formed due to the resistance level of the plants contacted (or not contacted) by the electrodes.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiersbach, as applied to claim 25 above, in view of Pluenneke (US 3919806, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Pluenneke, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 35:
Geiersbach discloses the limitations of claim 25 above and further discloses wherein the support structure comprises a front support portion comprising a gap for allowing the passage of the plant.
PNG
media_image5.png
507
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Geiersbach fails to disclose that the front support portion comprises additional locomotion means.
Pluenneke discloses an incredibly similar electrical applicator trailer 10 supported by two sets of wheels (two sets of locomotion means), one on a front portion, and one on a rear portion (see Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trailer of Geiersbach to be supported by two sets of wheels, one on the front and one on the rear, as in Pluenneke, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the stability of the device and prevent excessive loads on individual device components, by balancing out the weight distribution. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pg 9, the applicant argues that Geiersbach does not disclose the claimed electrode arrangement (arguing against the ‘vertically disposed’ language, as best understood) because, in Geiersbach, the spring leaves 36 are disposed such that the contacting surface is substantially parallel to the ground, and that they extend horizontally, and that, in contrast, the claim defines an electrode being disposed with its flat region perpendicular to the ground, and with the contacting surfaces facing each other not the direction of travel.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as can be seen in Fig 4, the spring leaves have a non-zero dimension in the vertical (up/down) direction, and therefore may be considered ‘vertically disposed’. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., flat region perpendicular to ground, contacting surfaces facing each other, not the direction of travel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 9, the applicant argues that the apertures 18 shown in Fig 1 of Geiersbach do not anticipate the claimed aperture, given the apertures indicated are position in the rear portion of the electrode arrangement, opposite to the moving direction, and that the apertures are gaps between individual spring leaves, not between two facing electrodes.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apertures in a front portion, relative to the moving direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In regard to the latter argument, yes, the apertures are between the individual spring leaves, however, these leaves are considered the electrodes for the sake of the claim, and it is clear they face each other from the figures.
On pages 9-10, the applicant argues that Geiersbach does not disclose electrodes that are pressed against each other by spring force and configured to move away from each other when contacting the plant; and further, that there is no disclosure of the paired electrodes working cooperatively to clamp a plant stem between them.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electrodes pressed together by spring force, and electrodes clamping a plant stem between them) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims require that the electrodes are pressed against each other and are configured to move away from each other when contacting the plant and configured to return to a pressed together position when the plant is released. The examiner asserts that this functionality is taught by Geiersbach. As can be seen in Fig 1, the bases of each electrode is pressed against the electrode adjacent to it, and per Col 3, lines 30-40, the electrodes are ‘spring leaves’ and allow for deflection when engaging a plant. Given the intrinsic material properties of the electrodes, the electrodes could inherently perform this functional language (see MPEP 2114).
On page 10, the applicant contends that Geiersbach does not disclose the claimed arrangement of at least two vertically disposed electrodes with flat regions facing each other to form an aperture, pressed against each other and configured to cooperatively engage plant stems.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As above, Geiersbach discloses at least two vertically disposed electrodes (spring leaves 36, Fig 3A; has vertical dimensionality per Fig 3a, and thus vertically disposed) pressed against each other (see Fig 1), with flat regions facing each other to form an aperture (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
480
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “configured to cooperatively engage plant stems”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 11, the applicant argues that Geiersbach does not disclose that the at least two conductive electrodes are inclined with respect to each other with a width of the aperture that gradually decreases along a length of the electrode.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and points to Figure 1, which clearly shows such structure, and the rejection of claim 25 above.
On page 11, the applicant argues that Geiersbach does not disclose a curved region.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and points to Figure 1, which clearly shows such structure, and the rejection of claim 25 above.
On pages 11-12, the applicant remarks on the differences between Geiersbach and Laronze, and the claimed invention, commenting that the insulation of Geiersbach, and Laronze serve different purposes than that of the applicant’s invention. Further, the applicant argues that the insulating mats of claim 32 are provided on the sides of the support structure to protect the electrodes and improve the safety as the applicator operates along the field.
Although the examiner acknowledges that Geiersbach and Laronze differ in ways from the disclosed invention, the applicant has not clearly pointed out how Geiersbach and Laronze differ from the claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., insulating mats provided on the sides of the support structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 12, the applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Geiersbach. The applicant argues that the examiner’s asserted motivation (to prevent arc flashovers between neighboring electrodes, should a potential difference be formed due to resistance levels of the plants contacted (or not contacted) by the electrodes) is null, given Geiersbach already addresses this issue through its use of isolating electrical reactance elements (inductors 60) that limit current flow and maintain voltage on non-conducting electrodes (col 4, lines 9-22). The applicant asserts that Geiersbach teaches away from the need for physical insulating barriers between electrodes because the electrical isolation is achieved through inductors.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is true that the electrode pairs 18 are separately supplied from a high voltage source through inductors such that the voltage of each electrode pair is independent of its neighbors, however, it is unclear how this would prevent arc flashovers. Per the cited section of Geiersbach, the inductors appear to simply regulate current, prevent a high voltage drop across the high voltage source, and limit impacts of faults with the source. Arc flashovers may occur when a potential difference occurs between two conductive elements in a circuit and current flows from the higher voltage element to the lower voltage element across an unintended path/medium. Per Geiersbach Col 3, lines 45-50, “Although weed engaging electrodes 18 are theoretically at the same voltage in the open circuit condition when no weeds are contacted thereby, a difference of potential may exist between an electrode 18 contacting a weed and an adjacent electrode 18 which does not.” The examiner asserts that, given Geiersbach proves a voltage difference may occur between electrodes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the importance of thoroughly insulating electrodes from each other, and Laronze would provide an obvious means for improving such insulation – via mats between electrodes, which, per Laronze, helps prevents arcing between the constituent electrodes with different potentials. In response to the applicant’s vague remark that Geiersbach teaches away from the claimed invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees and asks the applicant to cite where in these prior art references the disclosure expressly teaches away from the proposed modifications, providing teachings that the proposed modifications would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its Intended Purpose. See MPEP 2145 (X)(D). Geiersbach does not appear to criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the addition of further insulation, in the form of mats, as in Laronze, but rather seems to encourage it, by remarking on the importance of insulation.
On page 13, the applicant asserts the configuration where the support structure comprises a front support portion comprising a gap for allowing the passage of the plant and additional locomotion means is not suggested by the combination of Geiersbach and Pluenneke for claim 35. Similarly, on page 14, the applicant argues that the combination of Geiersbach and Pluenneke would not yield the specific configuration of claim 35, which requires a front support portion with both a gap and locomotion means.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as in the rejection above, Geiersbach teaches a front support portion with a gap (see annotated Fig 2 below), but fails to disclose that the front support portion comprises additional locomotion means.
PNG
media_image7.png
450
516
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Pluenneke discloses an incredibly similar arrangement with locomotion means and additional locomotion means (see two sets of wheels in Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
194
316
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trailer of Geiersbach to be supported by two sets of wheels, one on the front and one on the rear, as in Pluenneke, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the stability of the device and prevent excessive loads on individual device components, by balancing out the weight distribution. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The substitution of one wheel set for two, as in Pluenneke would suggest locations of the wheels, as in Pluenneke, which would result in the additional locomotion means being located in the front support portion of Geiersbach.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific functional relationship between wheels and electrodes/adjustable height on Pg 13) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pages 13-14, the applicant argues that the addition of an additional locomotion means via Pluenneke would not be a mere duplication of parts, but rather “a specific structural arrangement that serves a particular function in the context of the claimed electrode configuration.”
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
On page 14, the applicant claims that providing an additional set of locomotion means on the front support portion would not be obvious given it provides the unexpected result of maintaining a proper electrode height while allowing plant stems to be engaged within the aperture.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, first noting that, nowhere in the claims is it required that the wheels provide the electrodes at a certain height, and second noting that such functionality would not be an unexpected result, but rather would be inherent to the addition of wheels as obvious over Pluenneke. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Frankly, it is unclear, what claimed feature (presence of additional wheels, location of wheels, etc.) the applicant considers to be responsible for the argued ‘unexpected result’ of ‘maintaining proper electrode height while allowing plant stems to be engaged within the aperture formed by the facing electrodes’; however, the examiner argues that the supposed ‘unexpected result’ of ‘maintaining…’, while not claimed, is already taught by the first locomotion means of Geiersbach, and, given the near identical disclosure of Pluenneke, it would be wholly clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the addition of additional locomotion means would not interfere with this functionality. Further, the examiner notes that the applicant has not provided evidence showing that their results, whichever they may be, were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, as required per MPEP 716.02.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642