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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
According to MPEP 609, in nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 provide a mechanism by which patent applicants may comply with the duty of disclosure provided in 37 CFR 1.56.
Applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution also may want the Office to consider information for a variety of other reasons; e.g. to make sure that the examiner has an opportunity to consider the same information that was considered by these individuals, or by another patent office in a counterpart or related patent application filed in another country.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each of the concave edges is a semi-circle to extend circumferentially around the inlet”1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
As currently depicted, the figures show that the concave inner edge 54 of the first barrier panel 34 extends around a first semicircle of the inlet, and the concave inner edge 54 of the second barrier panel 36 extends around a second semicircle of the inlet. Essentially, each of the concave edges is a semi-circle to extend semicircularly around the inlet.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an opening formed in the cabinetry”2 ” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
As currently depicted, the figures show an area formed between an upper cabinet (above a cooktop), and a pair of lateral cabinets on both sides of the upper cabinet; openings are limited to those formed in the blower assembly.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Range Hood Barrier.
Claim Objections
In re Claims 2 and 9, the limitation “at least one breakaway section separated3 from the panel base by a frangible breakline and each of the breakaway sections is removable4 from the panel base” is unclear.
If each panel includes at least one breakaway section separated from the panel base, then each of the breakaway sections is removed from the panel base. Alternatively, if each panel includes at least one breakaway section separatable from the panel base, then each of the breakaway sections is removable from the panel base.
While support is found for the claim limitation (specification paragraph [0005]), for purposes of examination the limitation has been understood to as if to read, “at least one breakaway section that can be separated from the panel base by a frangible breakline and each of the breakaway sections is removable from the panel base”, as supported in specification paragraph [0011].
In re Claims 6, in view of the antecedence for “frangible breakline” in claims 2, the limitation “additional breakaway lines” is unclear. For purposes of examination the limitation has been understood to as if to read “additional breaklines
In re Claim 8, insufficient antecedent basis has been provided for the limitation “the blower” in line 5. For purposes of examination the limitation has been understood to as if to read, “[[the]] a blower”.
In re Claim 18, the claim preamble discloses “The method claim of claim 8,” but claim 8 discloses an apparatus (a protective barrier). This has been understood to be a minor typographical error, and has been interpreted as if to read, “The method claim of claim [[8]] 15”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
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 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.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Giannini (US 3,098,423).
In re Claim 8, Giannini discloses a protective barrier (figs 1 – 3: (22left/12/22right)) configured to be coupled to a surface of cabinetry (col 1, lns 26 – 34) adjacent to an opening formed in the cabinetry to block heat and particles from reaching the surface of the cabinetry, the protective barrier comprising:
a first barrier panel (22 left) and a second barrier panel (22 right),
wherein the first and second barrier panels are movable (col 2, lns 7 – 14) relative to [[the]] a blower (col 1, lns 31 – 32 ) to increase or decrease a width of the barrier during installation so that the width of the barrier matches a cabinet width (col 1, lns 26 - 34) of the downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry (col 2, lns 61 – 69).
Regarding the limitation, “to block heat and particles from reaching the surface of the cabinetry”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In re Claim 14, Giannini further discloses wherein the protective barrier comprises a pair of side barrier panels (figs 1, 2: (27left, 27right)) coupled to opposite lateral ends of the barrier, a front barrier panel (28/29/30) coupled to a front end of the side barrier panels (as seen in the figures), and a rear barrier panel (25) coupled to a rear end of the side barrier panels (col 2, lns 14 – 18, 27 – 32).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Giannini (US 3,098,423), in view of Sinur et al (CA 2968410).
In re Claims 1, and 7, Giannini discloses a range hood (figs 1 – 3: (11)) configured to be mounted to cabinetry above a cooktop (“a kitchen range”), the range hood comprising:
a blower assembly including a fan housing (“with… an exhaust fan: col 1, lns 26 – 34) defining an inlet (at (14)) that opens toward the cooktop and a fan arranged to lie within the fan housing and configured to vent air and particles through the inlet (“extending upwardly through the ceiling and roof”: col 1, lns 65 – 68), and
a barrier (22/12/22) configured to be coupled to a downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry (col 2, lns 39 - 43) to lie between the fan housing and the cabinetry to block heat and particles from reaching the downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry,
wherein the barrier includes a first barrier panel (22/23 left) and a second barrier panel (22/23 right), the first and second barrier panels are movable relative to the blower to increase or decrease a width of the barrier during installation so that the width of the barrier matches a cabinet width of the downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry (col 2, lns 61 – 69).
As Giannini discloses that a blower is optional, one may construe that it lacks a blower assembly including a fan housing, configured to vent air and particles through the inlet. However, such a technique is known in the art, as evidenced by Sinur et al.
Sinur et al teaches a range hood (figs 1, 5: (24)) configured to be mounted to cabinetry above a cooktop (not shown), the range hood comprising:
a blower assembly (pg 7/29, lns 7 – 12) including a fan housing (fig 1: (26)) defining an inlet that opens toward the cooktop and a fan (“blower”) arranged to lie within the fan housing and configured to vent air and particles through the inlet (pg 7/29, lns 28 – 29: “permitting air to flow … out of the duct system for the building), and
a barrier (22/28) configured to be coupled (at (32)) to a downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry (fig 5: (10)) to lie between the fan housing (26) and the cabinetry (10) (pg 7/29, lns 19 – 33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Giannini as taught by Sinur et al, such that the system comprises a blower assembly including a fan housing defining an inlet that opens toward the cooktop and a fan arranged to lie within the fan housing and configured to vent air and particles through the inlet and out of the building, for improved air quality during use of the cooktop.
In re Claim 7, Giannini further comprising a pair of side barrier panels (figs 1, 2: (27left, 27right)) coupled to opposite lateral ends of the barrier, a front barrier panel (28/29/30) coupled to a front end of the side barrier panels (as seen in the figures), and a rear barrier panel (25) coupled to a rear end of the side barrier panels (col 2, lns 14 – 18, 27 – 32).
Claims 2 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Giannini (US 3,098,423), in view of Sinur et al (CA 2968410), and further in view of Winton (US 3,125,869).
In re Claim 2, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Giannini discloses the first barrier panel (22/23Left) and the second barrier panel (22/23Right) each include a panel base (23).
However, the proposed system lacks wherein the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel each include at least one breakaway section separated5 from the panel base by a frangible breakline and each of the breakaway sections is removable from the panel base to adjust the width of the barrier.
Winton teaches a range hood (fig 1: (26)) configured to be mounted to cabinetry (22 – 25) above a cooktop (21), the range hood comprising:
a blower assembly (fig 12: (81)), and
a barrier (figs 1, 2, 5, 11: (27/29)) configured to be coupled to a downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry to lie between the fan housing and the cabinetry (col 2, lns 15 – 19),
wherein the barrier (27/29) includes a panel base (fig 5: (27)) and at least one breakaway section (annotated below) separated from the panel base (27) by a frangible breakline (“scored with an indenting tool”: col 1, lns 17 – 22; col 2, ln 35)
the breakaway lines extends linearly from a front end of the panel base to a rear end of the panel base and that are configured to be separated from the rest of the panel base to decrease the width of the barrier separately from the at least one breakaway section of barrier panel (col 2, lns 29 – 32, 43 – 47); and
PNG
media_image1.png
473
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each panel base having a first thickness and each breakaway line having a second thickness less than the first thickness (col 2, ln 35: “scored with an indenting tool or the like”).
As Winton teaches “scoring the panel base with an indenting tool”, it has been understood to teach breakaway lines (31) having a (second) thickness that is less than a (first) thickness of the panel base.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system, as taught by Winton, such that the barrier panel includes at least one breakaway section, separated from the panel base by a frangible breakline and each of the breakaway sections is removable from the panel base to adjust the width of the barrier, for the benefit of an easy system customization to suit the space requirements of the installation site, reducing installation time and costs.
In re Claim 3, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein each breakaway section (annotated fig 5, above) defines a straight edge, as each of the breakaway sections is removable from outermost edges of each panel base.
Accordingly, the proposed system lacks wherein each breakaway section defines a concave edge, such that each breakaway section is removable from innermost edges of each base panel (23 left, 23 right).
However, it would have been obvious to try modifying Giannini such that each breakaway section defines a concave edge (such as at the semicircular notches (34) of Giannini), as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claim 4, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Giannini discloses the first (22/23 left) and second (22/23 right) barrier panels comprise semi-circular edges (fig 2: (34)), together extending circumferentially around the inlet (fig 1:”vent aperture” (14)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Giannini, such that each of the concave edges is a semi-circle to extend circumferentially around the inlet, for the benefit of forming an opening in order to accommodate the exhaust duct opening in the installation site (col 3, lns 61 – 66).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 5, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 2, above) wherein Giannini discloses (figs 1, 2) the panel base of the first barrier panel (23 left) and the second barrier panel (23 right) are arranged to lie in end-to-end relation with one another (when the breakaway sections remain fixed to the panel base, as taught by Winton) to establish a first width of the barrier and the cabinet width.
Giannini also teaches wherein the barrier further comprises a third barrier panel (13), such that the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel overlap with the third barrier panel (“are telescopically engageable” (col 2, lns 7 – 14) so that the system “may be adjusted in size to fit a wide range of kitchen cabinets” (col 2, lns 62 – 65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panel base of the first barrier panel, and the panel base of the second barrier panel such that they overlap, as taught by Giannini, such that the panel base of the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel overlap with one another, when the breakaway sections are removed from the panel base to establish a second width of the barrier and the cabinet width, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest. Please note that criticality has not been provided for the claimed limitation.
In re Claim 6, the proposed system has been discussed (see In re Claim 2, above), wherein the panel base of at least one of the first and the second barrier panels includes additional breaklines (fig 5: (31)) that extend linearly from a front end of the panel base to a rear end of the panel base and that are configured to be separated from the rest of the panel base to decrease the width of the barrier (e.g.: incrementally from width “A” to width “B”) separately from the at least one breakaway section of the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel.
Claims 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Giannini (US 3,098,423), in view of Winton (US 3,125,869).
In re Claim 9, the system of Giannini has been discussed, wherein the first barrier panel (22/23Left) and the second barrier panel (22/23Right) each include a panel base (23).
However, Giannini lacks wherein the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel each include at least one breakaway section separated6 from the panel base by a frangible breakline and each of the breakaway sections is removable from the panel base to adjust the width of the barrier.
Winton teaches a range hood (fig 1: (26)) configured to be mounted to cabinetry (22 – 25) above a cooktop (21), the range hood comprising:
a barrier (figs 1, 2, 5, 11: (27/29)) configured to be coupled to a downwardly-facing surface of the cabinetry to lie between the fan housing and the cabinetry (col 2, lns 15 – 19),
wherein the barrier (27/29) includes a panel base (fig 5: (27)) and at least one breakaway section (annotated below) separated from the panel base (27) by a frangible breakline (“scored with an indenting tool”: col 1, lns 17 – 22; col 2, ln 35);
wherein the breakaway lines extends linearly from a front end of the panel base to a rear end of the panel base and that are configured to be separated from the rest of the panel base to decrease the width of the barrier separately from the at least one breakaway section of barrier panel (col 2, lns 29 – 32, 43 – 47); and
PNG
media_image1.png
473
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each panel base having a first thickness and each breakaway line having a second thickness less than the first thickness (col 2, ln 35: “scored with an indenting tool or the like”).
As Winton teaches “scoring the panel base with an indenting tool”, it has been understood to teach breakaway lines (31) having a (second) thickness that is less than a (first) thickness of the panel base.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Giannini, as taught by Winton, such that the barrier panel includes at least one breakaway section, separated from the panel base by a frangible breakline and each of the breakaway sections is removable from the panel base to adjust the width of the barrier, each panel base having a first thickness and each breakaway line having a second thickness less than the first thickness, for the benefit of an easy system customization to suit the space requirements of the installation site, reducing installation time and costs.
In re Claim 10, see above In re Claim 3, wherein the proposed system comprises each breakaway section defines a concave edge.
In re Claim 11, see above In re Claim 4, wherein the proposed system comprises each of the concave edges is a semi-circle to extend circumferentially around the inlet.
In re Claim 12, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 9, above) wherein Giannini (figs 1, 2) discloses the panel base of the first barrier panel (23 left) and the second barrier panel (23 right) are arranged to lie in end-to-end relation with one another (when the breakaway sections remain fixed to the panel base, as taught by Winton) to establish a first width of the barrier and the cabinet width.
Giannini also teaches wherein the barrier further comprises a third barrier panel (13), such that the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel overlap with the third barrier panel (“are telescopically engageable” (col 2, lns 7 – 14) so that the system “may be adjusted in size to fit a wide range of kitchen cabinets” (col 2, lns 62 – 65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panel base of the first barrier panel, and the panel base of the second barrier panel such that they overlap, as taught by Giannini, such that the panel base of the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel overlap with one another, when the breakaway sections are removed from the panel base to establish a second width of the barrier and the cabinet width, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest. Please note that criticality has not been provided for the claimed limitation.
In re Claim 13, the proposed system has been discussed (see In re Claim 9, above), wherein the panel base of at least one of the first and the second barrier panels includes additional breakaway lines (fig 5: (31)) that extend linearly from a front end of the panel base to a rear end of the panel base and that are configured to be separated from the rest of the panel base to decrease the width of the barrier (e.g.: incrementally from width “A” to width “B”) separately from the at least one breakaway section of the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Giannini (US 3,098,423), in view of Winton (US 3,125,869).
In re Claim 15, Giannini discloses a method of installing a protective barrier for a range hood (col 1, lns 12 – 25) configured to protect a surface of cabinetry located adjacent to an exhaust inlet (figs 1 – 3: at (14)), the method comprising:
defining a cabinet width between two cabinets (col 2, ln 61 – col 3, ln 4) arranged on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet from one another,
obtaining a first barrier panel (22/23Left) and a second barrier panel (22/23Right), each barrier panel including a panel base (22), and
placing each barrier panel on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet (14) from one another such that inner edges of each barrier panel coincide with the exhaust inlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
391
963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Giannini lack wherein the method comprises wherein:
each barrier panel including the panel base and at least one breakaway section coupled to the panel base by a breakaway line; and
removing at least one breakaway section from the panel base along the breakaway line.
Winton teaches a method of installing a protective barrier for a range hood, the method comprising:
defining a cabinet width between two cabinets (fig 1: (22, 23) arranged on opposite sides of an exhaust inlet (76) from one another,
obtaining a barrier panel (fig 5: (27/29)) including a panel base (27) and at least one breakaway section (annotated above, In re Claim 2) coupled to the panel base (27) by a breakaway line (31),
removing at least one breakaway section (col 2, lns 38 – 40, 51) from the panel base along the breakaway line (31)**;
placing each barrier panel on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet (14) from one another such that inner edges of each barrier panel coincide with the exhaust inlet (col 2, lns 51 – 55).
**Regarding the limitation “removing at least one breakaway section”, as Winton teaches that the panel may be “cut with tin snips or the like” along a breakline 31 (col 2, lns 35 – 38), this has been understood to disclose the step of removing at least one breakaway section, by shearing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Giannini as taught by Winton, such that the method includes the steps of
each barrier panel including a panel base and at least one breakaway section coupled to the panel base by a breakaway line; and
removing at least one breakaway section from the panel base along the breakaway line,
for the benefit of simplifying the installation of a range hood protective barrier, saving installation time and costs.
In re Claim 16, the proposed method has been discussed, but lacks wherein, after placing each barrier panel on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet, at least a portion of the first and second barrier panel overlap one another in a vertical direction.
However, Giannini further teaches a step of installing a protective barrier comprising a third barrier panel (13), such that the first barrier panel and the second barrier panel overlap with the third barrier panel (“are telescopically engageable” (col 2, lns 7 – 14) so that the system “may be adjusted in size to fit a wide range of kitchen cabinets” (col 2, lns 62 – 65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Giannini, such that after placing each barrier panel on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet, and at least a portion of the first and second barrier panel overlap one another in a vertical direction, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest. Please note that criticality has not been provided for the claimed limitation.
In re Claim 17, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein each breakaway line (annotated Winton fig 5, above) is a straight line parallel to an outermost straight edge of each panel base, relative to the exhaust inlet.
Accordingly, the proposed method lacks wherein each breakline is concave, relative to the exhaust inlet; each of the breakaway sections removable from innermost curved (concave) edges of each base panel.
PNG
media_image3.png
427
1407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to try modifying the proposed method such that each breakaway line is concave relative to the exhaust inlet (such as at the semicircular notches (34)at the inner edge of Giannini), as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claim 18, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Giannini (figs 1 – 3) further comprising attaching:
(i) a pair of side barrier panels (27) to opposite lateral ends of the barrier,
(ii) a front barrier panel (28/29/30) to a front end of the side barrier panels (27), and
(iii) a rear barrier panel (25) to a rear end of the side barrier panels (27).
In re Claim 19, the proposed method has been discussed (In re Claim 15, above), wherein Winton further teaches the step of, prior to placing each barrier panel on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet, the method further includes bending or removing a portion (75) of the panel base (27) along an additional line (73, 74) (col 3, lns 61 – 65) that is spaced apart from the breakaway line (31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Winton, such that the method further comprises, prior to placing each barrier panel on opposite sides of the exhaust inlet, bending or removing a portion of the panel base along an additional line that is spaced apart from the breakaway line, for the benefit of modifying the barrier panel to serve various system requirements thereby improving marketability.
In re Claim 20, see above In re Claim 17, wherein the proposed method comprises the additional line is a linear line and each breakaway line is semi-circular.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Applicant is provided 3 months to reply to any office action on the merits; the maximum statutory period for a reply is 6 months. 35 USC 113, 37 CFR 1.134.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on T – Th: 9 – 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.270.6460 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Claims 4, 11
2 Claim 8, specification paragraph [0005]
3 separated (verb): “to set or keep apart, disconnect, sever”. © 2025 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
4 removed (verb): “to move by … taking away or off; separate” © 2025 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
5 Please see Claim Objection, above.
6 Please see Claim Objection, above.