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 limitation “the surface of the contacting portion (11) of the inflatable body (2, 2') is larger in the working state than in a non-working state of the inflatable body (2, 2') in which the inflatable body (2, 2') is not inflated due to non-pressurization of the fluid (8)” is defined from the specification as “It is clear that the surface of the contacting portion 11 in the working state according to Figure 2 is bigger than in the non-working state according to Figure 3”.
PNG
media_image1.png
499
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
491
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification defines the surface being larger in the expanded state (figure 2) when compared to the deflated state (figure 3) and will be interpreted accordingly.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “a connection line (10) fluidly connecting the inflation generator (3), the temperature control generator (4), the control unit (9) and the inlet opening (6, 6') and outlet opening (7, 7') of the carrier portion (12, 12') of the temperature control body (2)” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the control unit is fluidly connected with the connection line or rather what structure is represented by the control unit. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a connection line (10) fluidly connecting the inflation generator (3), the temperature control generator (4), the control unit (9) and the inlet opening (6, 6') and outlet opening (7, 7') of the carrier portion (12, 12') of the temperature control body (2)” will be interpreted as – a connection line (10) fluidly connecting the inflation generator (3), the temperature control generator (4) and the inlet opening (6, 6') and outlet opening (7, 7') of the carrier portion (12, 12') of the temperature control body (2)--.
Regarding Claim 13, line 15 states “a carrier portion”, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgrader et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0087903A1) in view of Damren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0089925A1), hereinafter referred to as Belgrader and Damren, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Belgrader discloses a device for controlling the temperature of an item to be temperature controlled, the item (1008) having a circumferential wall (shown in figures 1C), comprising
a temperature control body (1004, 1024) comprising a first portion (1024) comprising a contacting portion consisting of an elastic stretchable (“a temperature-control fluid and comprises a flexible, heat conductive surface that comes in contact with at least a portion of an exterior surface of the reaction chamber”, see abstract) material (shown in figures 1B-1C, wherein the material stretches to be compliant with the reaction chamber (1008)), and
a second portion comprising a carrier portion (1004) consisting of material (“The housing 1004 can be constructed from materials and designs well known to persons having ordinary skill in the art. Examples of such materials include, without limitation, plastics, metals, ceramics, composites, and the like” ¶29) that is stiff and not stretchable compared to the material of the first portion (shown in figures 1B and 1C, wherein the housing does not inflate or expand during the conditioning cycle) and has an inlet opening (shown in figure 1A) and an outlet opening (shown in figure 1A) for a fluid (“Each temperature-control bladder 1024 is configured to accept a temperature-control fluid, such as a liquid or gas” ¶31),
an inflation generator (“pump” see ¶34), a temperature control generator (“The temperature of the temperature-control fluid is manipulated by a temperature controller located between the reservoir and the temperature-control bladder 1024. The temperature controller is a heater or a heater/cooler combination that is capable of rapidly change the temperature of the temperature-control fluid as the fluid passes through the temperature controller”, ¶31),
a control unit (“system controller” ¶51) by means of which the temperature control generator and the inflation generator are controllable (“the valves, pumps, and heat exchangers in the device 6000 are controlled by a system controller” ¶51) such that a fluid (“the controller may stage the cycling timing and temperature of the temperature-control fluid in the bladder thermal cycler 6000” ¶51) flows through the temperature control body (1004, 1024) with a predetermined temperature, a predetermined pressure and a predetermined volumetric flow (“The pumps 6050 and 6052 may have fixed or variable speed. Variable speed offers the benefit of better fluid pressure control for bladder expansion and contraction. It also allows fine tuning of temperature control, for example, by utilizing a feedback loop between the temperature sensors and the pump speed control” ¶50),
a connection line (shown in figures 1B, 6 and 8-9) fluidly connecting the inflation generator (“pump” see ¶34 and figures 1B, 6 and 8-9), the temperature control generator (see annotation from ¶31 above and figures 1B, 6 and 8-9), the control unit (“system controller” ¶51) and the inlet opening and outlet opening of the carrier portion (1004) of the temperature control body, wherein
the temperature control body is an inflatable body having a volume which is changeable via the inflation generator (shown in figures 1B and 1C) such that the inflatable body, in a working state with volumetric expansion, rests at least in regions form-fittingly against the circumferential wall of the item (1008) to be temperature controlled (“the introduction of the temperature-control material into the bladder is effective to induce expansion of the bladder from a substantially non-abutting disengaged position (see FIG. 1B) to an engaged position in which the bladder abuts substantially at least a portion of the outer wall (1016) of the reaction chamber (see FIG. 1C)”, ¶34), whereby
the item (1008) to be temperature controlled is temperature controllable to a predetermined temperature in the working state of the temperature control body (“The direct contact between the temperature-control bladder 1024 and the chamber wall 1016 allows for thermal exchange between the temperature-control fluid and the internal volume 1020 of the reaction chamber 1008”, ¶32),
wherein the surface of the contacting portion (shown in figures 1B-1C, being the portion that stretches to contact the reaction chamber (1008)) of the inflatable body is larger in the working state than in a non-working state of the inflatable body in which the inflatable body is not inflated due to non-pressurization of the fluid (shown in figures 1B-1C). Belgrader fails to disclose a carrier portion which is connected to the contacting portion and the contacting portion of the inflatable body rests against an inner side of the carrier portion in the non-working state of the inflatable body.
Damren, also drawn to a conforming thermal transfer device, teaches a carrier portion (1306) which is connected to the contacting portion (1304) and the contacting portion of the inflatable body rests against an inner side of the carrier portion in the non-working state of the inflatable body (“The liner 1304 can be maintained between an inner reactor vessel or container 1302 and the outer support structure 1306 by any suitable method such as by friction, pressure (for example, pressure exerted on the surfaces upon expansion of the collapsible bag), gravity, fastening with screws, pegs, clamps, or the like, and use of adhesives”, ¶121).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a contacting portion resting against an inner side of a carrier portion with a contacting portion not resting against an inner side of a carrier portion; further the prior art to Damren teaches attaching the contacting portion to the carrier portion is known. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Belgrader with having the contacting portion resting against an inner side of a carrier portion, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Damren there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Belgrader by having the contacting portion resting against an inner side of a carrier portion in order to maintain a consistent shape for the thermal transfer device or to better control the expansion of the liner.
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Belgrader further teaches the fluid is a temperature control fluid (“The temperature of the temperature-control fluid is manipulated by a temperature controller located between the reservoir and the temperature-control bladder 1024. The temperature controller is a heater or a heater/cooler combination that is capable of rapidly change the temperature of the temperature-control fluid as the fluid passes through the temperature controller”, ¶31)
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Belgrader further teaches the temperature control means are at least one of a heating system (“The temperature of the temperature-control fluid is manipulated by a temperature controller located between the reservoir and the temperature-control bladder 1024. The temperature controller is a heater or a heater/cooler combination that is capable of rapidly change the temperature of the temperature-control fluid as the fluid passes through the temperature controller”, ¶31)).
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Belgrader further teaches the heating system is arranged outside of the inflatable body (“The temperature of the temperature-control fluid is manipulated by a temperature controller located between the reservoir and the temperature-control bladder 1024. The temperature controller is a heater or a heater/cooler combination that is capable of rapidly change the temperature of the temperature-control fluid as the fluid passes through the temperature controller”, ¶31), see also figures 6 and 8-9).
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Belgrader further teaches the form of the carrier portion (1004 of Belgrader, and 1306 of Damren) of the inflatable body is independent of the pressure applied to the inflatable body (shown in figures 1B and 1C of Belgrader and shown in figure 13 of Damren).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Belgrader further teaches the carrier portion (1306 as taught by Damren in the rejection of Claim 1) is material-fittingly or force-fittingly connected to the contacting portion (1304) at its edges (“The liner 1304 can be maintained between an inner reactor vessel or container 1302 and the outer support structure 1306 by any suitable method such as by friction, pressure (for example, pressure exerted on the surfaces upon expansion of the collapsible bag), gravity, fastening with screws, pegs, clamps, or the like, and use of adhesives”, ¶121).
Regarding Claim 13, Belgrader discloses a method for controlling the temperature of an item (1008) to be temperature controlled, wherein
a temperature control body comprises a contacting portion (1024) and a carrier portion (1004), wherein the control body in a working state position rests with the contacting portion for thermal contact against a circumferential wall of the item to be temperature controlled (“the introduction of the temperature-control material into the bladder is effective to induce expansion of the bladder from a substantially non-abutting disengaged position (see FIG. 1B) to an engaged position in which the bladder abuts substantially at least a portion of the outer wall (1016) of the reaction chamber (see FIG. 1C)”, ¶34),
the method comprising filling the temperature control body with a pressurized fluid having a predetermined temperature in a working state such that the temperature control body rests with the contacting portion against the item to be temperature controlled (“The introduction of the temperature-control fluid into the temperature-control bladder 1024 induces expansion of the temperature-control bladder 1024 and converts the temperature-control bladder 1024 from the substantially non-abutting disengaged position (FIG. 1B) to an engaged position in which the temperature-control bladder 1024 abuts at least a portion of the chamber wall 1016 (FIG. 1C)” ¶32) until the item reaches a desired temperature and bringing the temperature control body, by non-pressurization of the fluid, into a non-working state in which the contacting portion of the inflatable body is spaced apart from the circumferential wall of the item to be temperature controlled after the item has reached the desired temperature (“the temperature-control substance is introduced into bladders, which thereby expand and told the cartridge and heat the reactants for a pre-determined time. At a chosen moment, the temperature-control substance is withdrawn, and the bladders deflate to reduce or check further thermal exchange. This disengaged configuration can be maintained for a determined period, after which the bladders are again engorged to bring the reactants back to the earlier temperature or, optionally, a different temperature”, ¶36), wherein a second portion of the inflatable body is a carrier portion (1004, shown in figures 1B-1C), wherein the carrier portion of the inflatable body has an inlet opening (shown in figure 1A) and an outlet opening (shown in figure 1A) for the fluid (“Each temperature-control bladder 1024 is configured to accept a temperature-control fluid, such as a liquid or gas” ¶31), wherein
the inflatable body is coupled with an inflation generator (“pump” see ¶34), wherein, by means of the inflation generator, a fluid is introduced into the inflatable body with such pressure that the inflatable body rests with a surface-increased contacting portion against the circumferential wall of the item to be temperature controlled (shown in figure 1C, see previous annotation from ¶32), wherein
the surface (shown in figures 1B-1C, being the portion that stretches to contact the reaction chamber (1008)) of the contacting portion of the inflatable body is larger in the working state than in a non-working state of the inflatable body in which the inflatable body is not inflated due to non-pressurization of the fluid (shown in figures 1B-1C), and wherein
the contacting portion of the inflatable body consists of a stretchable material (“a temperature-control fluid and comprises a flexible, heat conductive surface that comes in contact with at least a portion of an exterior surface of the reaction chamber”, see abstract, see also figures 1B-1C).
Belgrader fails to explicitly disclose a second portion of the inflatable body which is connected to the contacting portion is a carrier portion and the contacting portion of the inflatable body rests against an inner side of the carrier portion in a non-working state of the inflatable body.
Damren, also drawn to a conforming thermal transfer device, teaches a second portion of the inflatable body which is connected to (“The liner 1304 can be maintained between an inner reactor vessel or container 1302 and the outer support structure 1306 by any suitable method such as by friction, pressure (for example, pressure exerted on the surfaces upon expansion of the collapsible bag), gravity, fastening with screws, pegs, clamps, or the like, and use of adhesives”, ¶121) the contacting portion is a carrier portion (1306) and a contacting portion (1304) of the inflatable body rests against an inner side of the carrier portion (1306).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a contacting portion resting against and connected to an inner side of a carrier portion with a contacting portion not resting against and connected to an inner side of a carrier portion; further the prior art to Damren teaches attaching the contacting portion to the carrier portion is known. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Belgrader with having the contacting portion resting against and connected to an inner side of a carrier portion, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Damren there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Belgrader by having the contacting portion resting against and connected to an inner side of a carrier portion in order to maintain a consistent shape for the thermal transfer device or to better control the expansion of the liner.
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Belgrader further teaches the carrier portion (1004 of Belgrader, and 1306 of Damren) is rigid (shown in figures 1B-1C of Belgrader, wherein the housing does not stretch or flex during operation and further taught by Damren, “A reusable support structure such as a rigid vessel or tank can be utilized to surround and support the collapsible bag”, ¶48 of Damren).
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Belgrader further teaches the carrier portion (1004) consists of a solid plastics material (“The housing 1004 can be constructed from materials and designs well known to persons having ordinary skill in the art. Examples of such materials include, without limitation, plastics, metals, ceramics, composites, and the like” ¶29).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgrader et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0087903A1) in view of Damren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0089925A1) as applied in Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-18 above and in further view of Murphy (US PG Pub. 2015/0027434A1), hereinafter referred to as Murphy.
Regarding Claim 11, Belgrader further discloses, in the working position, the contacting portion (1024) surrounds the item (1008) to be temperature controlled at least in an angle region (shown in figures 1b-1C). Belgrader fails to disclose the carrier portion is at least one of a hollow cylinder and a curved shape, wherein, in the working position, the contacting portion surrounds the item to be temperature controlled at least in a reflex circumferential angle region.
Damren teaches the carrier portion (1306 as taught by Damren in the rejection of Claim 1) is at least one of a curved shape (shown in figure 13 of Damren).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a curved shape carrier portion with a polygonal shaped carrier portion; further the prior art to Damren teaches a curved shape carrier portion is known. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Belgrader with having a curved shape carrier portion, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Damren there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Belgrader by having a curved shape carrier portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Regarding Claim 11, Belgrader fails to explicitly disclose in the working position, the contacting portion surrounds the item to be temperature controlled at least in a reflex circumferential angle region. Belgrader does, however, disclose in the working position, the contacting portion surrounds the item to be temperature controlled at least in an circumferential angle region (shown in annotated figures 1b-1C) for providing heat exchange between the item and the bladder. Further, Murphy teaches in the working position, the contacting portion (71) surrounds the item (80) to be temperature controlled at least in a reflex circumferential angle region (shown in figures 7-8). Therefore, the circumferential angle region is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a larger angle of contact between the contacting portion and the item increases the amount of heat exchange between said components increases through conduction, wherein a decrease in the contacting portion decreases the amount of heat exchange between the components. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that in the working position, the contacting portion surrounds the item to be temperature controlled at least in a circumferential angle region, was disclosed in the prior art by Belgrader, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the contacting portion surrounding the item to be temperature controlled at least in a reflex circumferential angle region. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgrader et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0087903A1) in view of Damren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0089925A1) as applied in Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-18 above and in further view of Machold et al. (US PG Pub. 2004/0024437A1), hereinafter referred to as Machold.
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Belgrader further teaches the fluid is pressurized (“In one embodiment, the valves, pumps, and heat exchangers in the device 6000 are controlled by a system controller using software that contains a thermal cycling protocol.”, ¶51 of Belgrader), Belgrader fails to disclose the fluid is pressurized at a constant pressure.
Machold, also drawn to a pump for pressurizing heat exchange fluid, teaches the fluid is pressurized at a constant pressure (“The pump section is configured to allow for pumping of heat exchange fluid at a constant pressure”, ¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the fluid of Belgrader being pumped at a constant pressure, as taught by Machold, the motivation being to maintain constant temperature change or to recognize leaks or obstructions that accompany pressure fluctuations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgrader et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0087903A1) in view of Damren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0089925A1) as applied in Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-18 above and in further view of Bendig et al. (Translation of DE3817526A1), hereinafter referred to as Bendig.
Regarding Claim 15, although Belgrader further discloses the fluid is guided through the inflatable body, Belgrader fails to disclose the fluid is guided through the inflatable body with a constant volumetric flow.
Bendig, also drawn to delivering cooling fluid to a device, teaches a fluid is guided with a constant volumetric flow (“Fig. 5 now clearly shows that the apparent from Fig. 1 and 4 and described in detail in the foregoing device almost independent of the respective pump pressure (operating pressure) has an almost constant volume flow and thus provides an almost uniform cooling performance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Belgrader with the fluid being guided through the inflatable body with a constant volumetric flow, as taught by Bendig, the motivation being to provide uniform thermal transfer, thereby maintaining the source at a desired temperature and negating extreme temperature fluctuations caused by non-uniform thermal transfer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgrader et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0087903A1) in view of Damren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0089925A1) as applied in Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-18 above and in further view of Hinjosa et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0024866A1), hereinafter referred to as Hinjosa.
Regarding Claim 15, although Belgrader further discloses the fluid is guided through the inflatable body, Belgrader fails to disclose the fluid is guided through the inflatable body with a constant volumetric flow.
Hinjosa, also drawn to delivering cooling fluid to a device, teaches a fluid is guided with a constant volumetric flow (“The pressure sensor could monitor the pumping pressure of the working fluid and be able to sense if an occlusion has occurred. At steady state, the working fluid pump (2) infuses working fluid at a constant flow rate. The pumping of working fluid generates a pressure in the rigid reservoir (3) that is also constant at steady state. However, if there is a blockage in any of the fluid channels then the pressure within the container will increase as seen in FIG. 31”, ¶130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Belgrader with the fluid being guided through the inflatable body with a constant volumetric flow, as taught by Hinjosa, the motivation being to determine the formation of a blockage within the fluid flow path, wherein the blockage is recognized when the pressure within the flow path deviates from the steady state pressure that correlate with the constant flow rate.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgrader et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0087903A1) in view of Damren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0089925A1) as applied in Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-18 above and in further view of Nozaki (US PG Pub. 2020/0398281A1), hereinafter referred to as Nozaki.
Regarding Claim 16, Belgrader fails to disclose the stretchable material is a film.
Nozaki, also drawn to a thermal transfer device with an expandable contacting portion, teaches the stretchable material-is a film (“The first bag 20a and the second bag 20b are soft bags that are made of, for example, a resin film and are easily deformed”, ¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the stretchable material of Belgrader being a film, as taught by Nozaki, the motivation being that films are known to be easily deformable thereby allowing the thermal transfer device to be compliant in conforming to the object requiring temperature regulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 13 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “First, Applicants submit that what is illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 is that upon expanding the cuff 71 the surface of the contacting portion will actually be smaller. For this reason Applicants firstly disagree with the Examiner.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant specification states, “It is clear that the surface of the contacting portion 11 in the working state according to Figure 2 is bigger than in the non-working state according to Figure 3. This occurs due to the expansion of the contacting portion 11 as a result of the pressurization by the inflation generator 3”. It appears as though the Applicant’s argument is contradictory to the instant specification, wherein the surface is defined as larger in the working state (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
491
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763