DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 36-38 are withdrawn by the Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Regarding claims 36 and 37, the elected embodiment shown in Figs. 4-7 does not include “at least one fastening hole with an internal thread”.
Regarding claim 38, the elected embodiment shown in Figs. 4-7 does not include “the centre hole has an inner circle edge which is provided with a constriction as an abutment…wherein the constriction on the inner circle edge of the centre hole consists of a concentric circumferential taper with which the inner circle edge merges into the rear side of the hub connection flange, wherein the taper produces an undercut surface on the inner circle edge, which jumps back circumferentially on the rear side at least 4 mm with respect to the inner diameter of the inner circle.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “168” has been used to designate both what appears to be the metal pin and the cover ring in Fig. 6.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 168 (Fig. 6).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "185" (note at least Fig. 5) and "168" (note Fig. 6) have both been used to designate the metal pin.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "165" and "168" have both been used to designate the cover ring in Fig. 6.
A reference character is needed to designate the claimed “reversibly bendable retaining lip” set forth in claim 30 for a better understanding of Applicant’s claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the cover main body is provided on the outer circumference with a ring-shaped peripheral web with air duct slots” as set forth in claim 45 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
In paragraph [00043], the description of reference character being “blind hole depressions” should be corrected inasmuch as the drawings clearly do not show the hole depression having a closed end as would be required by a “blind hole”. As best understood, the hole represented by reference character 158 in the drawings (note Fig. 7) would be considered a counterbore hole.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 33, 35, 40 and 43-45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 33, the phrase “an inner rim shoulder and an outer rim shoulder and a rim well base between the rim shoulders” in lines 2-3 should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- an inner rim shoulder, an outer rim shoulder, and a rim well base between the rim shoulders -- for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 33, the phrase “at least one of the fastening holes” in the second-to-last line should be replaced with the phrase -- the at least one fastening hole -- for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 33, the period between the term “connection” and “flange” in the last line should be deleted for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “an inner rim shoulder and an outer rim shoulder as well as a rim well base between the rim shoulders” in lines 2-3 should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- an inner rim shoulder, an outer rim shoulder, and a rim well base between the rim shoulders -- for grammatical clarity and remove the use of narrative language.
Regarding claim 35, the superfluous comma should be deleted in line 14.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “at least one of the fastening holes” in line 14 should be replaced with the phrase -- the at least one fastening hole -- for grammatical clarity.
Applicant is advised that should claim 36 be found allowable, claim 37 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 40, the phrase “an inner rim shoulder and an outer rim shoulder as well as a rim well base between the rim shoulders” in lines 5-6 should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- an inner rim shoulder, an outer rim shoulder, and a rim well base between the rim shoulders -- for grammatical clarity and remove the use of narrative language.
Regarding claim 40, the superfluous period at the end of the claim should be deleted for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 43, the left parenthesis in line 5 should be deleted for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 43, the space between the term “body” and the period in the last line of the claim should be removed.
Regarding claim 44, the superfluous comma in line 19 should be deleted.
Regarding claim 45, the superfluous comma in line 19 should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
Specifically, regarding claim 40, the “actuating means for pushing the partial elements of the locking pin apart” is considered to be “metal pin 185” (note paragraph [00042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34, 36, 37 and 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “at least one fastening hole widens, from the front side of the vehicle wheel to the rear side of the hub connection flange” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the “at least one fastening hole” refers to “at least one of the fastening holes widens conically from the front side of the vehicle wheel to the rear side of the hub connection flange” previously recited in independent claim 33 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction. Note that if the “at least one fastening hole widens” limitation refers to the “at least one of the fastening holes widens conically” limitation previously set forth, such limitation would be rejected under 35 USC 112(d) for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding withdrawn claim 36, in the interests of compact prosecution, the limitation “several fastening holes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “several fastening holes” refers to “several fastening holes” previously set forth in claim 35 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied the claim construction. Further, the limitation “a bolt circle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a bolt circle” refers to “a bolt circle” previously set forth in claim 35 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding withdrawn claim 37, in the interests of compact prosecution, the limitation “several fastening holes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “several fastening holes” refers to “several fastening holes” previously set forth in claim 35 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied the claim construction. Further, the limitation “a bolt circle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a bolt circle” refers to “a bolt circle” previously set forth in claim 35 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction. Moreover, this claim is indefinite because the last line of the claim appears to have been cut-off (i.e., note the phrase “, wherein .”).
Regarding claim 39, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inside”.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “a fastening device” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a fastening device” refers to “a fastening device” previously set forth in lines 3-4 of claim 40 or if it is distinct therefrom.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “an aerodynamic wheel disc cover” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an aerodynamic wheel disc cover” refers to “Aerodynamic wheel disc cover” previously set forth in line 1 of claim 40 or if it is distinct therefrom.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “a detachable retaining means” in lines 16-17 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a detachable retaining means” refers to “at least one retaining means” previously set forth in line 3 of claim 40 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “a fastening hole” in line 18 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a fastening hole” refers to “several fastening holes” previously set forth in line 12 of claim 40 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 40, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its underside” in line 20.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “a bolt circle” in line 20 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a bolt circle” refers to “a bolt circle” previously set forth in line 8 of claim 40 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 40, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “their lower pin end” in line 21.
Regarding claim 40, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the partial elements” in line 22.
Regarding claim 40, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the radial direction with respect to an initial state” in line 23.
Regarding claim 43, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its underside” in line 2.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “an aerodynamic wheel disc cover” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an aerodynamic wheel disc cover” refers to “Aerodynamic wheel disc cover” previously set forth in line 1 of claim 44 or if it is distinct therefrom.
Regarding claim 45, the limitation “an aerodynamic wheel disc cover” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an aerodynamic wheel disc cover” refers to “Aerodynamic wheel disc cover” previously set forth in line 1 of claim 45 or if it is distinct therefrom.
Regarding claim 45, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cover ring” in line 20.
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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt et al. (US 2022/0134802 A1; hereinafter “Vogt”) in view of Chatterton (GB 629,134 A).
Regarding claim 35, Vogt discloses a vehicle wheel 1, having a metal rim (paragraph [0039]) with an outer rim flange (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2), an outer rim shoulder (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2) as well as a rim well base 5, having a metal wheel disc (disc best shown in Fig. 2 comprising spokes 3, 3.1 and hub connection flange at 4) arranged inside the rim and connected to the rim (Fig. 2), the disc has a hub connection flange at 4 with a centre hole (unlabeled, but evident from Figs. 1 and 2) and a plurality of bolt holes (unlabeled, but evident from Figs. 1 and 2) arranged on a bolt circle (evident from Figs. 1 and 2) around a wheel axle (implicit from Figs. 1 and 2), a transition area (at spokes 3, 3.1) and a disc edge (unlabeled radially outer edge of spokes connected to the rim),wherein the hub connection flange, the transition area, the outer rim flange and the outer rim shoulder form a front side of the vehicle wheel (Figs. 1 and 2), and having a fastening device (Figs. 7-10) for an aerodynamic wheel disc cover 6.1 (Figs. 7 and 10), wherein the fastening device comprises several fastening holes B4, B5, wherein the fastening holes are arranged in the hub connection flange (note location of B3 in Fig. 2, the modified fastening holes at B4, B5 can also be positioned in this location at B3 in the hub connection flange as evident from paragraphs [0048] and [0040]) and the transition area is provided with ventilation holes 2, wherein at least one fastening hole consists of a through hole with a hole axis (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below), is formed symmetrical to the hole axis, has a diameter (“smaller diameter” shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below) on the front side of the wheel being smaller than a diameter (“larger diameter” shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below) on a rear side of the hub connection flange and forms an abutment (portion of hub connection flange abutted by locking projection 17.1 as evident from Fig. 10) for a detachable retaining means (comprised of 8.1 and 9.1) acting by form fit (Fig. 10), wherein at least one fastening hole has a step (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below) between the front side of the vehicle wheel and the rear side of the hub connection flange and forms a retaining projection (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 above) for the retaining means with an undercut provided by the step (Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Vogt discloses a rim well base 5 as noted above, Vogt fails to expressly disclose the vehicle wheel having an inner rim flange, an inner rim shoulder, and the rim well base between the rim shoulders.
Chatterton, however, teaches a vehicle wheel with an inner rim flange (unlabeled inner or inboard rim flange shown in Fig. 3) and an outer rim flange (outer or outboard rim flange comprised of 24 and 14 in Fig. 3), an inner rim shoulder (unlabeled inner or inboard shoulder or bead seat shown in Fig. 3) and an outer rim shoulder (unlabeled outer or outboard shoulder or bead seat shown in Fig. 3) as well as a rim well base at 1 between the rim shoulders (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle wheel of Vogt so that it includes an inner rim flange, an inner rim shoulder, and the rim well base between the rim shoulders, such as taught by Chatterton, as a well-known wheel rim construction that would have a reasonable expectation of success for allowing a tire to be seated thereon.
Claims 40-42, as best understood in light of the section 112 issues noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt in view of Chatterton, and further in view of Dominguez et al. (US 2016/0243891 A1; hereinafter “Dominguez”).
Regarding claim 40, Vogt discloses an aerodynamic wheel disc cover 6.1 for a vehicle wheel 1, with a cover main body for covering the front side of the vehicle wheel between the centre hole and the outer rim flange (note at least Figs. 1 and 2), and with at least one retaining means (comprised of 8.1 and 9.1) interacting with a fastening device (comprised of fastening holes B4, B5, wherein the fastening holes are arranged in the hub connection flange as noted by the location of B3 in Fig. 2, the modified fastening holes at B4, B5 can also be positioned in this location at B3 in the hub connection flange as evident from paragraphs [0048] and [0040]) on the vehicle wheel, wherein the vehicle wheel is having a metal rim (paragraph [0039]) with an outer rim flange (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2), an outer rim shoulder (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2) as well as a rim well base 5, having a metal wheel disc (disc best shown in Fig. 2 comprising spokes 3, 3.1 and hub connection flange at 4) arranged inside the rim and connected to the rim (Fig. 2), the disc has a hub connection flange at 4 with a centre hole (unlabeled, but evident from Figs. 1 and 2) and a plurality of bolt holes (unlabeled, but evident from Figs. 1 and 2) arranged on a bolt circle (evident from Figs. 1 and 2) around a wheel axle (implicit from Figs. 1 and 2), a transition area (at spokes 3, 3.1) and a disc edge (unlabeled radially outer edge of spokes connected to the rim),wherein the hub connection flange, the transition area, the outer rim flange and the outer rim shoulder form a front side of the vehicle wheel (Figs. 1 and 2), and having a fastening device (Figs. 7-10) for an aerodynamic wheel disc cover 6.1 (Figs. 7 and 10), wherein the fastening device comprises several fastening holes B4, B5, wherein the fastening holes are arranged in the hub connection flange (note location of B3 in Fig. 2, the modified fastening holes at B4, B5 can also be positioned in this location at B3 in the hub connection flange as evident from paragraphs [0048] and [0040]) and the transition area is provided with ventilation holes 2, wherein at least one fastening hole consists of a through hole with a hole axis (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below), is formed symmetrical to the hole axis, has a diameter (“smaller diameter” shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below) on the front side of the wheel being smaller than a diameter (“larger diameter” shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 10 below) on a rear side of the hub connection flange and forms an abutment (portion of hub connection flange abutted by locking projection 17.1 as evident from Fig. 10) for a detachable retaining means (comprised of 8.1 and 9.1) acting by form fit (Fig. 10), wherein the retaining means is acting by form fit (Fig. 10), which is designed to engage in or behind a fastening hole B4 that widens towards the rear side of the hub connection flange (Fig. 10), wherein the cover main body has several locking pins (considered to be the locking pins comprised of 8.1 and 9.1 that are positioned at each B3 in the hub connection flange) on its underside, which pins are arranged symmetrically on a bolt circle (evident from Fig. 2) and which are provided with a hook projection at 10.1 at their lower pin end (Figs. 8 and 10), wherein each locking pin is designed at least in two parts (“half-shells” as described in paragraph [0048] and shown in Fig. 8) and the partial elements (i.e., “half-shells” as described in paragraph [0048] and shown in Fig. 8) of the locking pin is pushable apart and/or are pushed together in the radial direction with respect to an initial state (evident from Fig. 10 and paragraph [0051]), and each locking pin is provided with a centre hole (unlabeled hole in Fig. 10 that receives securing pin 22) for an actuating means 22 for pushing the partial elements of the locking pin apart (evident from Fig. 10 and paragraph [0051]).
Although Vogt discloses a rim well base 5 as noted above, Vogt fails to expressly disclose the vehicle wheel having an inner rim flange, an inner rim shoulder, and the rim well base between the rim shoulders.
Chatterton, however, teaches a vehicle wheel with an inner rim flange (unlabeled inner or inboard rim flange shown in Fig. 3) and an outer rim flange (outer or outboard rim flange comprised of 24 and 14 in Fig. 3), an inner rim shoulder (unlabeled inner or inboard shoulder or bead seat shown in Fig. 3) and an outer rim shoulder (unlabeled outer or outboard shoulder or bead seat shown in Fig. 3) as well as a rim well base at 1 between the rim shoulders (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle wheel of Vogt so that it includes an inner rim flange, an inner rim shoulder, and the rim well base between the rim shoulders, such as taught by Chatterton, as a well-known wheel rim construction that would have a reasonable expectation of success for allowing a tire to be seated thereon.
Vogt further fails to disclose the cover main body being annular.
Dominguez, however, teaches an aerodynamic wheel disc cover wherein the wheel disc cover 1 can either be in the form of a cover main body that covers a portion of the front face of the wheel (Fig. 1) or be in the form of an annular cover main body that completely covers the entire front face of the wheel (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aerodynamic wheel disc cover of Vogt, as modified by Chatterton, so that the cover main body is annular, such as taught by Dominguez, as a well-known alternative configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a desired aesthetic while also providing improved aerodynamic properties for the wheel.
Regarding claim 41, Vogt fails to discloses the outer rim flange has an arcuately curved locking lip on the inside as an abutment for a locking projection or several locking projections on the outer circumference of the aerodynamic wheel disc cover, wherein each locking projection has at least one bead for edging into the locking lip.
Chatterton, however, further teaches a vehicle wheel wherein the outer rim flange has an arcuately curved locking lip at 27 on the inside as an abutment for a locking projection at 26 or several locking projections on the outer circumference of the aerodynamic wheel disc cover (Fig. 3), wherein each locking projection has at least one bead 28 for edging into the locking lip (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle wheel of Vogt so that the outer rim flange has an arcuately curved locking lip on the inside as an abutment for a locking projection or several locking projections on the outer circumference of the aerodynamic wheel disc cover, wherein each locking projection has at least one bead for edging into the locking lip, such as taught by Chatterton, as a well-known wheel disc cover securing arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in helping secure the radially outer end of the wheel disc cover in a desired position.
Regarding claim 42, the modification of the aerodynamic wheel disc cover of Vogt so that it completely covers the entire front face of the wheel, such as taught by Dominguez, would implicitly result in the cover main body being designed and dimensioned to cover all bolt holes as well as the wheel bolt screws screwed into the bolt holes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed.
Claims 34, 39 and 43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 44 and 45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
It is noted that no specific argument regarding the patentablity of the claims was made in the response filed on 21 September 2026.
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 KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
