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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Fig. 1-27) to cover claims 1-23 & 26-30 in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner outlined the search burden on page 2, and additionally, even the Applicant understands difference in species as they themselves detail that Figs. 28-32 are drawn to a second embodiment, as outlined in ¶0073-77.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As a result of the election of Species, claims 9 & 10 are removed from consideration as pertaining to a non-elected species of at least Fig. 28 when claiming limitations pertaining to a fixed hook 153, detailed in Figs. 28 and 29.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the inlet and the outlet are opened and closed simultaneously or together by the variable panel”, of which the Examiner is aware that the word “simultaneously” and “together” can be synonyms, or different words that mean the same thing. To obviate the objection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the limitation to require one or the other, as they both relate the same function.
Claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim, as claim 29, which also depends from claim 26, recites the exact subject matter as claim 28 before it, which previously depended from claim 26. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a driving device in claims 1, 4, 12, 14, 16, & 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a driving device identified as element number 100 as at least illustrated in Figure 3 comprising of at least elements 102, 116, 120, 122, & 124, and at least described in paragraph 0159 of the 09/26/2023 specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-15, & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al (CN101498473), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Regarding claim 1, Woo (CN101498743) shows an air conditioner comprising:
a base panel (200, Fig. 1/2) having an inlet (see Annotated Figure 1 – the base panel 200 comprises of an inlet that receives air) formed in one side thereof (see Annotated Figure 1), and an outlet (see Annotated Figure 1- the base panel 200 comprises of an outlet that discharges air) formed in another side thereof (see Annotated Figure 1);
a variable panel (300, Fig. 2/3) disposed under the base panel (Fig. 1/2) and changed in shape to open and close the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 4/5 – the variable panel is element 300 of which comprises of the bottom face of the device); and
a driving device (500, Fig. 5) disposed on the base panel (Fig. 1/5 – the structure on which the driving device is disposed on is the base panel 200, as it and other components are suspending from the ceiling by the base panel 200) and changing a shape of the variable panel (Fig. 4/5),
wherein the variable panel comprises:
a fixed part (400/420, Fig. 5) disposed between the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 5), and fixed in position vertically relative to the base panel (Fig. 5);
a cover part (400/410B, Fig. 3) spaced apart from the fixed part and disposed at a lower side of the inlet or the outlet (Fig. 2/3); and
a variable part (400/410, Fig. 5, see Annotated Figure 2 – as the Applicant discloses a variable part, or flexible body 70, to comprise of a first and second flexible bodies 70a and 70b, of which are connected on both sides of the fixed part, or central rib 62, as does Woo show with the variable part comprising of element 410 and the variable, movable door opening and closing the air outlet 310) disposed between the fixed part and the cover part (Fig. 2/3), and changing an inclination angle of the cover part (Fig. 4/5).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
402
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Woo shows wherein the variable part is made of a deformable material (see Annotated Figure 2 - every material has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity, which is a materials measure of elastic deformation under stress; the variable part comprises of a material, of which is a deformable material).
Regarding claim 4, Woo shows wherein the driving device is coupled to the cover part or the variable part (Fig. 5 – the driving device is coupled to the variable part), so as to change a position of the cover part (Fig. 4/5).
Regarding claim 5, Woo shows wherein the variable panel comprises a plurality of bridges (see Annotated Figure 3) connecting the cover part and the fixed part (see Annotated Figure 3 – the edges of the bridges connect various parts with one another, including the cover part and the fixed part, as all parts are connected together, mounted from the ceiling), and spaced apart from each other in a left- right direction (see Annotated Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Woo shows further comprising a cover panel (400/410A, Fig. 3) disposed under the variable panel (300, Fig. 3/4/5) to cover a lower surface of the variable panel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Woo shows further comprising: a bracket (Fig. 4/5 - the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Bracket: 1. “an overhanging member that projects from a structure (such as a wall) and is usually designed to support a vertical load or strengthen an angle”; the Examiner is interpreting the composition of the structure of element 500 as shown in Fig. 7A, to be a bracket that projects from a structure, that is designed to support a vertical load) movably mounted on the variable panel (300, Fig. 4 – the bracket is movable mounted on the variable panel 300) and coupled to the driving device (500, Fig. 5); and
a bracket guider (see Annotated Figure 2, Fig. 5) disposed on the cover part (400/410B, Fig. 3) and guiding movement of the bracket (Fig. 4/5).
Regarding claim 13, Woo shows wherein the bracket guider comprises a fastening part (450, Fig. 4) fastened to the variable panel (300), and
a guide part (510, Fig. 4) disposed on one side of the fastening part (Fig. 4) and guiding movement of the bracket (Fig. 4/5),
wherein the guide part (510, Fig. 4/7A) is bent upward from both ends that are perpendicular to a moving direction of the bracket, so as to guide movement of the bracket (Fig. 4/5, ¶0038, Line 1 – the device comprises of driving devices on both sides of the device; where the guide part 510, in both ends that are perpendicular to the moving direction of the bracket so as to guide movement of the bracket, is bent upwards from both ends of the device).
Regarding claim 14, Woo shows wherein the bracket comprises
a moving plate (see Annotated Figure 2 – the moving plate is the smooth, rounded surface that extends beyond the gearing on element 510) that moves forward and backward along the guide part (510, Fig. 4/5 – once opened and closed, the guide part travels forward and backward, in a curved manner), and
a coupling plate (520, Fig. 7A) coupled to one side of the driving device (Fig. 5), wherein the coupling plate protrudes upward from one side of the moving plate (Fig. 5 – once assembled, the coupling plate protrudes upward from one side of the moving plate).
Regarding claim 15, Woo shows wherein the inlet and the outlet are opened and closed simultaneously or together by the variable panel (Fig. 4/5).
Regarding claim 31, Woo shows wherein the cover panel (400/410A, Fig. 3) is removably mounted to the variable panel (300, Fig. 3).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (CN101498473), hereinafter referred to as Woo, in view of Kim et al (KR2020011426), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Woo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the variable part and the cover part are made of structural materials, respectively.
However, Woo lacks showing the variable part and the cover part are made of different materials.
Kim (KR20200111426), an air conditioner with a movable panel, is in the same field of endeavor as Woo which is an air conditioner with a movable panel.
Kim teaches the variable part (150, Fig. 19, ¶0128) and the cover part (140, Fig. ) are made of different materials (¶0128 – element 150 and element 140 may be made of different materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the variable part and the cover part of Woo to incorporate the teachings of the parts 150 to be made of metal material and 140 be made of plastic of Kim, which would provide a front panel with a metallic appearance, increasing the visual aesthetic of the front panel of the device and reducing deformation of part 150 (¶0016).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (CN101498473), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Regarding claim 6, Woo shows wherein a vertical height of the bridges is more than a vertical height of the fixed part (400/420, Fig. 4/5).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation “a vertical height of the bridges is less than a vertical height of the fixed part”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a vertical height of the bridges be less than a vertical height of the fixed part instead of having a vertical height of the bridges is more than a vertical height of the fixed part, because applicant has not disclosed that having the vertical height of the bridges be less than a vertical height of the fixed part provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the vertical height of the bridges be less than a vertical height of the fixed part or a vertical height of the bridges is more than a vertical height of the fixed part arrangement, because both arrangements performs the function of facilitating working clearance of components within the device equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woo’s bridges relative to a vertical height of the bridges being less than a vertical height of the fixed part for the predictable benefit of reducing the overall thickness of components, saving cost on production overall.
Regarding claim 7, Woo shows wherein the variable part (400/410, Fig. 4/5) is disposed on a lower side of the bridges (Fig. 2/4/5).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation “wherein the variable part is disposed on an upper side of the bridges”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the variable part be disposed on an upper side of the bridges instead of having the variable part be disposed on a lower side of the bridges, because applicant has not disclosed that having the variable part be disposed on an upper side of the bridges provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the variable part be disposed on an upper side of the bridges or having the variable part be disposed on a lower side of the bridges arrangement, because both arrangements performs the function of discharging air equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woo’s’ variable part to be disposed on the upper side of the bridges for the predictable benefit of reducing the structural thickness of the components, lowering the overall profile of the device and saving on production costs while increasing the visual aesthetic.
Regarding claim 8, Woo shows wherein a lower surface of the bridges is formed as a flat surface (Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 1 – the structural component of the lower surface of the bridges where element 300 is being identified at in Fig. 2, while angled, is a flat surface) to be connected to the fixed part and the cover part (Fig. 4/5, see Annotated Figure 2), and an upper surface of the bridges is formed in a flat shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation “an upper surface of the bridges is formed in a serration shape”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the upper surface of the bridges being formed in a serration shape instead of having the upper surface of the bridges being formed in a flat shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having the upper surface of the bridges being formed in a serration shape provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose , or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the upper surface of the bridges being formed in a serration shape or having the upper surface of the bridges being formed in a flat shape, because both shapes performs the function of maintaining connection between components equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper surface of the bridges of Woo to have a serration shape for the predictable result and benefit of creating a surface that would frictionally embed the mating of the device and the ceiling in which it is mounted, creating a better seal (Fig. 4).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al (CN101498473), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Regarding claim 16, Woo (CN101498473) shows an air conditioner comprising:
a base panel (200, Fig. 1/2) having an inlet (see Annotated Figure 1) formed in one side thereof, and an outlet (see Annotated Figure 1) formed in another side thereof (see Annotated Figure 1);
a variable panel (300, Fig. 2/3) disposed under the base panel (Fig. 1/2) and changed in shape to open and close the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 4/5 – the variable panel is element 300 of which comprises of the bottom face of the device, of which its components are responsible for opening and closing the inlet and the outlet); and
a driving device (500, Fig. 5) disposed on the base panel (Fig. 1/5 – the structure on which the driving device is disposed on is the base panel 200, as it and other components are suspending from the ceiling by the base panel 200) and changing a shape of the variable panel (Fig. 4/5),
wherein the variable panel comprises:
a rigid body (Fig. 3 – the variable panel is comprised of a structural body of a material that has its own rigidity) made of a rigid material (Fig. 3) and having a bending hole (Fig. 6A/B - ) formed in some region thereof (Fig. 6A/B); and
a flexible body (412, Fig. 6A/B) made of a deformable material (Fig. 6A/B – element 412 is comprised of a physical structure of a material, of which each material has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity, which is a materials measure of elastic deformation under stress; the flexible body comprises of a material, of which is a deformable material), and disposed in the bending hole (Fig. 6B – Figure 6B shows the flexible body 412 disposed in the bending hole).
PNG
media_image3.png
702
1427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 18, Woo shows wherein the rigid body (300, Fig. 2) comprises a first plate (see Annotated Figure 3) disposed on one side of the flexible body (see Annotated Figure 3), a second plate (see Annotated Figure 3) disposed on another side of the flexible body (Fig. 3), a central rib (P, Fig. 3) disposed between the first plate and the second plate (Fig. 3), and a bridge (see Annotated Figure 3) connecting the first plate and the second plate to the central rib (see Annotated Figure 3 – the bridge on either side holds the components together along each whole side and connects the first plate and the second plate to the central rib).
Regarding claim 20, Woo shows wherein the rigid body has a groove (315, Fig. 6A) extending from the bending hole in a front-rear direction (see Annotated Figure 3), wherein the groove is formed in each of a lower surface and an upper surface of the rigid body (see Annotated Figure 3).
Claims 17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (CN101498473), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Regarding claim 17, Woo shows wherein the flexible body is connected with the bending hole of the rigid body.
Regarding claim 17, and the limitation wherein the flexible body is injection-molded into the bending hole of the rigid body, MPEP 2113.I. states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. In light of the structure of the flexible body and bending hole of Woo, the limitation of claim 21 has been given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19, Woo shows wherein the bending hole comprises a first bending hole (see Annotated Figure 3) formed in one of a front side and a rear side of the central rib (P, see Annotated Figure 3 – the first bending hole is formed in one of a front side of the central rib), and a second bending hole (see Annotated Figure 3) formed in the front side of the central rib, wherein the flexible body is disposed in each of the first bending hole and the second bending hole (Fig. 3 – each flexible body 412 is disposed in each of the first bending hole and the second bending hole).
Regarding claim 19 and the limitation “a second bending hole formed in a remaining one of the front side and the rear side of the central rib”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second bending hole being formed in a remaining one of the front side and the rear side of the central rib instead of having the second bending hole formed in the front side of the central rib, because applicant has not disclosed that the having the second bending hole being formed in a remaining one of the front side and the rear side of the central rib provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose , or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the second bending hole being formed in a remaining one of the front side and the rear side of the central rib or having the second bending hole formed in the front side of the central rib, because both arrangements performs the function of facilitating a mounting point for components equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second bending hole of Woo for the predictable benefit of providing a simple arrangement of the first and second bending holes to facilitate a single access point of maintenance with the first and second bending holes facing the same direction (Fig. 3).
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al (CN101498473), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Regarding claim 26, Woo (CN101498473) shows an air conditioner comprising:
a base panel (200, Fig. 1/2) having an inlet (see Annotated Figure 1) formed in one side thereof, and an outlet (see Annotated Figure 1) formed in another side thereof (Fig. 2/3 – the base panel 200 comprises of structure that has an inlet 305 formed on one side thereof and an outlet 310 formed in another side thereof);
a variable panel (300, Fig. 2/3) disposed under the base panel (Fig. 1/2) and changed in shape to open and close the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 4/5 – the variable panel is element 300 of which comprises of the bottom face of the device); and
a driving device (500, Fig. 5) disposed on the base panel (Fig. 1/5 – the structure on which the driving device is disposed on is the base panel 200, as it and other components are suspending from the ceiling by the base panel 200) and changing a shape of the variable panel (Fig. 4/5),
wherein the variable panel comprises:
a fixed part (400/420, Fig. 5) disposed between the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 5), and fixed in position vertically relative to the base panel (Fig. 5); and
a variable part (410, Fig. 5 – as the Applicant discloses a variable part, or flexible body 70, to comprise of a first and second flexible bodies 70a and 70b, of which are connected on both sides of the fixed part, or central rib 62, as does Woo show with the variable part comprising of element 410 and the variable, movable door opening and closing the air outlet 310) spaced apart from the fixed part (Fig. 5) and disposed under the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 5 / see Annotated Figure 1/2 – the variable part is disposed under the inlet and outlet of the base panel 200), and changing an inclination angle to open and close the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 4/5).
Regarding claim 27, Woo shows wherein the variable part is made of a deformable material (Fig. 5 - every material has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity, which is a materials measure of elastic deformation under stress; the variable part comprises of a material, of which is a deformable material).
Regarding claim 28, Woo shows wherein the variable part (410, Fig. 3/4) extends from the fixed part in a front-rear direction (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 has not been treated on the merits; see claim objection above.
Regarding claim 30, Woo shows wherein when the variable part (see Annotated Figure 2) is changed in shape (Fig. 4/5), a vertical separation distance between the base panel (200, Fig. 1) and a front end and a rear end of the variable part is changed (see Annotated Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art of record is Woo (CN101498473), and while this reference does disclose the bending hole, the flexibly body, and a groove in its manner, however this reference does not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of having a lower groove, which is connected to the bending hole and in which the flexible body is disposed, is formed in the lower surface of the rigid body. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Woo as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Woo by structurally modifying out of its best mode use by modifying the ability of the bending hole to retain the flexible member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 at 571-272-6460. 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, 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights