DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 9/5/2025. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21-40 are rejected.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 11,896,533.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims an apparatus that includes substantially the same structures as are recited in the instant application, including “a platform,” “a base,” “a support foot,” “a load cell beam,” “a motor,” “a strain gage (sic),” and wherein these structures are configured to provide functionality such as “independently sense the position of the ground surface and independently drive its associated support foot to the ground surface.”
Although the claims recitations at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the patented claims. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by (and anticipated by) the claims of the patent regardless of the differing scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Specifically, the degree to which the scope of the instant claims differ from the patented claims (if at all) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Abstract and Title
The abstract is objected to. See MPEP § 608.01(b) which states “the content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.” The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract is objected to because it does not concisely describe specific invention of the instant application (“that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains”). Additionally, the current abstract is identical to the abstract of parent Application 17/468,116 (now patent 11,896,533), this logically implies that the current application covers the same subject matter as is claimed in the parent patent (see double patenting rejection above). The title should similarly be amended to be more descriptive and is also objected to (MPEP §606.01).
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 27-32, 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”) in view of US Patent 4396,079 to Brendel.
Claim 21. A system for supporting or positioning a patient, comprising: a platform (Lussi, Fig. 1, #10) of a surgical table configured to support at least a portion of the patient; a base (Lussi, Fig. 1, #12) positioned beneath the platform and configured to support the platform, the base configured to contact a ground surface, the base comprising a lift mechanism comprising: a support foot (Lussi, Fig. 2, #64 or 44), a vertical shaft coupled to the support foot (see Lussi, Fig. 3 wherein there is a vertical shaft attached to foot #64), and a load cell beam being cantilevered (Lussi does not teach details of the force sensors, however Brendel teaches a weighing system and provides details of a strain gauge with a cantilevered beam at #16 in Fig. 3; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide strain gauges as taught by Brendel for the force sensors of Lussi, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and to provide the predictable benefit of being able to measure loads, such as the weight of a user, and/or the force applied to the floor beneath the combined user and surgical table thereby providing a more stable apparatus on uneven surfaces) relative to the vertical shaft (in the proposed combination of prior art, the load cell beam #16 of Brendel, which is cantilevered, is “relative to” the vertical shaft of Lussi in that the structures of Lussi and Brendel have been combined into a single apparatus) and connected
Claim 22. The system of claim 21, further comprising: a caster wheel (Lussi, Fig. 2, #26 and 28), a motor (Lussi teaches a pump system #72 that operates a hydraulic system; one of ordinary skill would understand that a hydraulic pump includes a motor), and a sensor for measuring applied vertical forces (Brendel Fig. 3), wherein the sensor comprises a strain gage measuring the strain in the load cell beam when vertical forces are applied (Brendel, Abstract), wherein the motor is configured to raise and lower the support foot (see Lussi Fig. 3), the caster wheel contacting the ground surface in the retracted position and not contacting the ground surface in the extended position, and wherein the platform is movable vertically relative to the base (Lussi provides this functionality, see at least the Abstract and Fig. 3.
Claim 23. The system of claim 21, wherein the lift mechanism comprises two or more lift mechanisms configured to level the base on the ground surface, the ground surface being uneven, and wherein each lift mechanism is configured to independently sense the position of the ground surface and independently drive its associated support foot to the ground surface (in view of Applicant’s disclosure paragraph [0089], sensing “the distance to a ground surface” has been interpreted as detecting when the support foot has hit the ground surface; Lussi provides this functionality in column 2, lines 9-24).
Claim 27. The system of claim 21, wherein the support foot is mounted to a distal end of the load cell beam, and the support foot coaxially aligned with the vertical shaft (it is inherent that in the combination of the load cell of Brendel with the support feet of Lussi, that the support foot must be attached to the distal end of the cantilevered load cell beam in order to measure the load, as this is the concept of operation of the load cell of Brendel).
Claim 28. The system of claim 21, the support foot comprising a rubberized bottom surface (Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a rubberized bottom on a furniture support leg or foot, and that doing so would have been within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 29. The system of claim 21, further comprising: a load cell support beam comprising a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end mounted to the vertical shaft and the distal end mounted to the load cell beam (Brendel teaches multiple beams as seen in Fig. 3; beam #48 reads on Applicant’s “load cell support beam”).
Claim 30. The system of claim 29, wherein the load cell beam comprises a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end of the load cell beam mounted to the distal end of the load cell beam and the support foot mounted to the distal end of the load cell (Brendel, Fig. 3; the proximal end of Brendel’s beam #48 is mounted to the distal end of beam #16).
Claim 31. The system of claim 30, wherein the load cell support beam and the load cell beam are aligned such that the vertical shaft and the support foot are coaxially aligned (it is inherent that in the combination of the load cell of Brendel with the support feet of Lussi, that the support foot must be attached to the distal end of the cantilevered load cell beam in order to measure the load, as this is the concept of operation of the load cell of Brendel).
Claim 32. A system for supporting a patient, comprising: a platform (Lussi, Fig. 1, #10) of a surgical table configured to support at least a portion of the patient; and a base (Lussi, Fig. 1, #12) positioned beneath the platform and configured to support the platform, the base comprising a plurality of lift mechanisms (Lussi, Fig. 3), each of the lift mechanisms comprising: a support foot (Lussi, Fig. 2, #64 or 44), a vertical shaft coupled to the support foot (see Lussi, Fig. 3 wherein there is a vertical shaft attached to foot #64), and a load cell beam being cantilevered (Lussi does not teach details of the force sensors, however Brendel teaches a weighing system and provides details of a strain gauge with a cantilevered beam at #16 in Fig. 3; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide strain gauges as taught by Brendel for the force sensors of Lussi, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and to provide the predictable benefit of being able to measure loads, such as the weight of a user, and/or the force applied to the floor beneath the combined user and surgical table thereby providing a more stable apparatus on uneven surfaces) relative to the vertical shaft and connected
Claim 34. The system of claim 32, wherein each of the plurality of lift mechanisms further comprises a load cell support beam configured to support the load cell beam (Brendel teaches multiple beams as seen in Fig. 3; beam #48 reads on Applicant’s “load cell support beam”).
Claim 35. The system of claim 34, wherein a proximal end of the load cell support beam is mounted to a lower portion of the vertical shaft, the load cell beam is indirectly mounted to the vertical shaft and located directly below the load cell support beam, and the vertical shaft is mounted within a vertical shaft bushing (in the proposed combination of Lussi and Brendel, the vertical shaft of the movable support feet of Lussi would be located at pin #58 in Brendel Fig. #3; Brendel provides a vertical shaft bushing #56).
Claim 36. The system of claim 35, wherein the load cell beam comprises a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the load cell support beam comprises a distal end, the proximal end of the load cell beam mounted to the distal end of the load cell support beam away from the vertical shaft, and the support foot mounted to the distal end of the load cell beam (in the proposed combination of Lussi and Brendel, the vertical shaft of the movable support feet of Lussi would be located at pin #58 in Brendel Fig. 3, the configuration of Brendel, Fig. 3 teaches the proximal end of Brendel’s beam #48 is mounted to the distal end of beam #16)
Claim 37. The system of claim 32, wherein the load cell support beam is nearly identical in length to the load cell beam (Brendel’s load cell support beam, #48 is not the same length as load cell beam #16; however, Applicant’s paragraph [0088] discloses that “such an arrangement can serve to eliminate or reduce moment loads being applied to the shaft 412 so the simple bushing 414 can be employed to minimize friction drag”; however, this claim does not require a bushing, and in the claimed configuration it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the beam #48 to be the same length as beam #16, or any other desired length, as an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 38. The system of claim 32, wherein the plurality of lift mechanisms are mounted generally at one or more corners of the surgical table, the plurality of lift mechanisms being spaced about the base (see Lussi, Fig. 2).
Claim 39. The system of claim 32, wherein at least one of the plurality of lift mechanisms comprises a transmission device configured to selectively raise or lower the vertical shaft in a vertical direction, the transmission device selected from one or more of the group consisting of: a drive pulley, a motor (Lussi teaches a pump system #72 that operates a hydraulic system; one of ordinary skill would understand that a hydraulic pump includes a motor), a timing belt pulley, and gears.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”) and US Patent 4396,079 to Brendel in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0299689 to Stubben.
Claim 24. The system of claim 21, wherein the lift mechanism comprises two or more lift mechanisms (see Lussi Fig. 3), the system configured to independently drive each support foot of the lift mechanisms downwardly until a predetermined current value is achieved (see independent actuators in Lussi Fig. 4), the current value corresponding to contact with the ground surface (Lussi does not teach using an electrical current value to detect the floor surface; Stubben teaches using the current in a motor as a threshold to stop the motor in paragraph 14; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this method of detecting the floor surface since doing so would have simply been using a known technique with a known apparatus to yield obvious and predictable results).
Claims 26 and 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”) and US Patent 4396,079 to Brendel in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0294252 to Whiteley et al. (“Whiteley”).
Claim 26. The system of claim 21, the lift mechanism comprising two or more lift mechanisms (Lussi, Fig. 2, #’s 30, 32, 56, and 58), the system comprising an encoder wheel and an optical sensor that are configured to independently drive each support foot of the lift mechanisms downwardly to a predetermined distance (Lussi and Brendel do not teach an optical encoder wheel; however this capability of measurement on a linear actuator is well known in the prior art, as taught at least by Whiteley Fig. 27 #264; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use and optical encoder wheel for sensing the position in space of a linear actuator as is taught by Whiteley since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 40. The system of claim 29, wherein the vertical shaft of the lift mechanism is secured at an upper end to one or more of a radial bearing and a thrust bearing to allow for rotation of the vertical shaft (radial bearings and thrust bearings are well known in the art of linear actuators, as taught by Whiteley Fig. 2, #116; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results and would have allowed for smooth operation of the linear actuators of Lussi).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”) and US Patent 4396,079 to Brendel in view of Application Publication 2018/0147106 to Soundararajan et al. (“Soundararajan”).
Claim 33. The system of claim 32, each of the lift mechanisms further comprising: a motor (Lussi teaches a pump system #72 that operates a hydraulic system; one of ordinary skill would understand that a hydraulic pump includes a motor) configured to raise and lower the support foot, and a sensor (Brendel Fig. 3) for measuring applied vertical forces, wherein the motor is configured to raise the support foot to the retracted position and lower the support foot to the extended position (see Lussi Fig. 3), and wherein the sensor configured to provide at least one of the weight of the surgical table at each of the plurality of lift mechanisms or load data to evaluate stability of the surgical table (while the purpose of the system of Lussi is to provide a stable system, Lussi does not provide specific details directed toward sensor data; however Soundararajan teaches a similar system and in paragraph [0082] and Fig. 8 discusses using sensed data to achieve stability; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Soundararajan with the apparatus of Lussi in order to optimize the stability of the table and to provide Lussi’s stated goal of providing a stable surgery table).
Claims 21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”) in view of US Patent 4396,079 to Brendel and US Patent Application Publication 2006/0053555 to Poulos et al. (“Paulos”).
Claims 21 and 32 recite limitations directed toward a surgical table with moveable legs and a weighing system. These structures are found in the prior art of Lussi and Brendel as discussed in the rejections above. With respect to Applicant’s allegation that there is no motivation to combine the weighing scale of Brendel with the bed of Lussi, (without acquiescing to the propriety of Applicant’s argument), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the weigh scale of Brendel with the bed of Lussi in view of Paulos since Paulos teaches a similar bed assembly, which already includes structures and functionality of “a weight frame assembly 34”, as discussed in paragraphs [0073]-[0081]. Therefore one of ordinary skill would have understood that it would be both possible and desirable to provide a bed with a weighing system, and that doing so would have simply been combining prior art structures according to known methods in order to yield predictable results.
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Applicant’s claim recitations of claims 25 directed toward “wherein after the predetermined current value is achieved, the system is configured to simultaneously drive each support foot,” are not found in the prior art, and are objected to as depending from a rejected claim. The closest prior art is considered to be US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi which discloses moving stabilizing feet until they are in contact with a (potentially uneven) floor surface, and US Patent Application Publication 2009/0299689 to Stubben which teaches using the current in a motor as a threshold to stop the motor. Applicant discloses a threshold current value as a predetermined current value, but does not additionally disclose “simultaneously drive each support foot” after such threshold is reached. The closest prior art stops moving the feet when the floor surface is reached. It appears that Applicant’s invention first provides a stable platform on a potentially uneven ground surface, then provides the additionally capability of raising the apparatus by extending all drive support feet simultaneously. This capability, in aggregate with Applicant’s other features, is not found in a single prior art reference, nor would it be obvious to combine any multiple prior art references to yield the claimed invention. Furthermore, Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments with respect to the word “connected” do not provide any patentably distinct structures in the claimed invention which are not found in the prior art. Examiner suggests providing additional claim language to describe the specific structures in Applicant’s Fig. 22, and to explicitly recite their shape, size, location, and configuration.
Applicant’s claims generally describe structures that are found in the prior art, such as in the cited art of Lussi and Brendel. Additionally, Stubben describes structures recited in claim 24, Whitley teaches structures that are found in claims 26 and 40, and Soundararajan describes structures found in claim 33. It does not appear that there are structures in the application which when claimed generally are unknown in the prior art. However, reciting all of these structures in a single claim (as is found in Applicant’s disclosed invention), would likely provide functionality that is not found in the prior art (such as is discussed in Applicant’s paragraph [0088]). Moreover, including the limitations of claims 32-36 and 40 in a single independent claim would likely be allowable over the prior art.
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
Regarding objections to the abstract and title, Applicant argues that the MPEP “does not require that the Abstract must be different from abstracts of parent applications.” While this may be true, MPEP § 608.01(b) does require that “the content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.” If the abstract of the disclosure is identical to that of the parent patent, it is unclear what is new in the art to which the instant application pertains. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments imply that there is no difference between the invention of the instant application and that of the parent patent.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of remarks that the combination of the teachings of Lussi and Brendel is improper because Applicant alleges that the prior art does not teach each and every claim element. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that Lussi and Brendel do not teach “a load cell beam being cantilevered relative to the vertical shaft and connected to the support foot.” Additionally Applicant argues that Brendel’s frame plate 10 is not a support foot, and that Brendel’s frame plate 10 is “not connected to a foot”. Examiner notes that rejection is based on the combination of teachings of Brendel and Lussi, not on Brendel or Lussi alone. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). In the instant case, the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be both possible to combine the load cell of Brendel with the surgery table of Lussi, and desirable to do so in order to provide the predictable benefit of being able to measure loads, such as the weight of a user, and/or the force applied to the floor beneath the combined user and surgical table, thereby providing a more stable apparatus on uneven surfaces.
Applicant argues on page 9 of remarks that the combination of the teachings of Lussi and Brendel is improper because Examiner has not articulated the Graham factual inquiries as required by MPEP §2143(I)(A). Examiner respectfully disagrees (see above rejections), but for the purposes of clarity of the record, addition discussion is provided herein:
(1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference: The prior art of Brendel and Lussi teach all of the structural elements of the claimed invention, including, in summary, a surgical table with adjustable feet (Lussi) and a load sensing device (Brendel).
(2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately: in the proposed combination of the prior art, the feet of the table of Lussi still provide stabilization of the surgical table and the load sensing device of Brendel still provides a load sensing capability.
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable: as there is no proposed change to the functionality or capability of the prior art teachings of Brendel and Lussi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the results of the combination would provide a surgical table with moveable legs which also has the capability to measure a force or load.
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least because doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, but also because doing so would provide the predictable benefit of being able to measure loads, such as the weight of a user, and/or the force applied to the floor beneath the combined user and surgical table thereby providing a more stable and safer apparatus on uneven surfaces.
Applicant also argues on at least page 10 of remarks that that the load cell beam of Brendel is not “connected to the support foot,” of Lussi. While it is true these structures are taught in two separate references, the rejection is not anticipation, but is based on obviousness under 35 USC §103 in light of the combination of these teachings. Additionally, Applicant appears to be inferring extrodinary meaning to the term “connected” which is not supported by either Applicant’s specification, or by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word. In the proposed combination of prior art teachings of Lussi and Brendel, the surgical table includes a load measuring device as taught by Brendel, and the device is connected the apparatus in that the two assemblies have been combined into a single apparatus.
Applicant argues on page 10 of remarks that the scale of Brendel is intended for low capacity, and makes the conslusory statement that such a scale would not be used for a surgical table. However as noted in at least MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A), changes in size or proportion of an apparatus are generally within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, in view of Brendel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to provide a scale on the surgical table of Lussi without an undue amount of experimentation.
Applicant argues on pages 11-13 of remarks that modifying Lussi with Brendel would have required significant reconstruction and rendered Brendel unsuitable for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the surgical table of Lussi could have been modified to provide a weighing functionality. Furthermore, Examiner disagrees that the combination would have required significant reconstruction. Some amount of experimentation would be required to provide a scale with a larger weight capacity that that of Brendel, however, as discussed in MPEP §2164.06, this does not indicate non-obviousness unless there is an undue amount of experimentation (also see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A), changes in size). Furthermore, Examiner notes that there is other prior art previously cited on the PTO-892 including
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673