DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communication received 02/13/2024 – application papers received; 11/19/2024 – IDS.
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 .
Continuation Data
This application is a CON of 17/649,314 01/28/2022 PAT 11896879 which is a CON of 16/949,224 10/20/2020 PAT 11235210 which is a CON of 16/252,317 01/18/2019 PAT 10806977 which claims benefit of 62/781,509 12/18/2018 and claims benefit of 62/770,000 11/20/2018 and claims benefit of 62/718,857 08/14/2018 and claims benefit of 62/702,996 07/25/2018 and claims benefit of 62/703,305 07/25/2018 and claims benefit of 62/644,319 03/16/2018 and claims benefit of 62/619,631 01/19/2018.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “removable weight” (claims 9 and 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 10 and 19, line 1 in each claim, “can comprise” (emphasis added) is indefinite. Why not simply say --comprises--.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,896,879 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”).
The claims of the ‘879 patent require all of the limitations of the instant claims with the exception of “a weight structure” (independent claims 1 and 12), “wherein the weight structure comprises a removable weight” (claims 9 and 18); and “wherein the weight structure comprises a mass between 50 and 80 grams” (claim 11 and 20).
Here, Stokke shows an arrangement in which an aft body of the club head includes a weight structure (2700) including a metallic removable weight (2790) that may comprise a mass of about 50 grams (i.e., see paragraphs [0062], [0063] and [0068]). The placement of the weight tends to alter the center of gravity of the club head and the moment of inertia (i.e., in paragraph [0061], Stokke provides an example of how locating the weight structure closer to the heel creates a decrease in hosel MOI, thereby allowing easier turning of the club head about the hosel axis). In view of the teaching in Stokke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘879 patent by incorporating a weight structure with a removable weight of between about 50 grams to 80 grams, the motivation being to provide a weight distribution that desirably alters the center of gravity and the moment of inertia for improved club head performance.
As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following comments:
As to independent claim 1, see claim 1 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 2 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 4 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 5 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 6, see claim 6 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 7 of the ‘879 patent.
As to independent claim 12, see claim 12 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 13, see claim 13 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 14, see claim 15 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 15, see claim 17 of the ‘879 patent.
As to claim 16, see claim 18 of the ‘879 patent.
Claims 8, 10, 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,896,879 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”) and also in view of USPN 7,938,742 to Galloway et al (hereinafter referred to as “Galloway”).
The claims of the prior ‘879 patent, as modified by Stokke, lack the additional features of “wherein the weight structure is co-molded with the rear body” (claims 8 and 17) along with “wherein the removable weight can comprise a metallic material chosen from the group consisting of steel, tungsten, aluminum, titanium, bronze, brass, copper, gold, platinum, lead, silver, and zinc” (claims 10 and 19).
Although Stokke does not specifically address the materials of the weight as well as the co-molded feature, note that Galloway teaches that a weight structure positioned in the aft body may be co-molded with the aft body during the manufacturing process and that the weight structure may include a weight (50) formed of metal material such as steel, steel alloys, brass, tungsten, or other high density materials (i.e., col. 8, lines 33-48). The arrangement in Galloway is likewise intended to improve the mass distribution and optimize the moment of inertia of the club head (i.e., col. 5, lines 8-13). In view of the teachings in Galloway, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘879 patent by co-molding the weight structure with the aft body and providing a high density metallic material for the weight in order to effectively relocate the center of gravity through a manipulation of the weight distribution. Note that the claimed “co-molded” feature reflects a product-by-process limitation and that the incorporation of such a process limitation as part of the claimed invention of the prior ‘879 patent would have been obvious when considering the materials set forth for the aft body and the processes relied upon to form both the aft body and the weight structure. For instance, forming the aft body from thermoplastic polymer materials, as is the case in the claimed invention of the ‘879 patent, would have guided the skilled artisan to use a process such as co-molding for ease of construction. Also, see MPEP 2113.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,235,210 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘210 patent are, on one hand, more specific than the instant claims. By way of example, the claims of the ‘210 patent further require “the thermoplastic composite comprises a specific gravity in a range of 1.0 to 2.0”.
On the other hand, the claims of the ‘210 patent lack the claimed features “a weight structure” (independent claims 1 and 12), “wherein the weight structure comprises a removable weight” (claims 9 and 18); and “wherein the weight structure comprises a mass between 50 and 80 grams” (claims 11 and 20).
Here, Stokke shows an arrangement in which an aft body of the club head includes a weight structure (2700) including a metallic removable weight (2790) that may comprise a mass of about 50 grams (i.e., see paragraphs [0062], [0063] and [0068]). The placement of the weight tends to alter the center of gravity of the club head and the moment of inertia (i.e., in paragraph [0061], Stokke provides an example of how locating the weight structure closer to the heel creates a decrease in hosel MOI, thereby allowing easier turning of the club head about the hosel axis). In view of the teaching in Stokke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘210 patent by incorporating a weight structure with a removable weight of between about 50 grams to 80 grams, the motivation being to provide a weight distribution that desirably alters the center of gravity and the moment of inertia for improved club head performance.
Further, the claims of the ‘210 patent differ from the instant claims merely in the order in which the limitations are presented, with minor grammatical phrasing differences. Moreover, note the following comments:
As to independent claim 1, see claim 1 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 2 of the ‘210 patent. As to claim 3, see claim 4 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 5 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 6 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 6, see claim 7 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 8 of the ‘210 patent.
As to independent claim 12, see claims 1 and 8-10 of the ‘210 patent. As to claim 13, see claim 16 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 14, see claim 4 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 15, see claim 6 of the ‘210 patent.
As to claim 16, see claim 7 of the ‘210 patent.
Claims 8, 10, 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,235,210 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”) and also in view of USPN 7,938,742 to Galloway et al (hereinafter referred to as “Galloway”).
The claims of the prior ‘210 patent, as modified by Stokke, lack the additional features of “wherein the weight structure is co-molded with the rear body” (claims 8 and 17) along with “wherein the removable weight can comprise a metallic material chosen from the group consisting of steel, tungsten, aluminum, titanium, bronze, brass, copper, gold, platinum, lead, silver, and zinc” (claims 10 and 19).
Although Stokke does not specifically address the materials of the weight as well as the co-molded feature, note that Galloway teaches that a weight structure positioned in the aft body may be co-molded with the aft body during the manufacturing process and that the weight structure may include a weight (50) formed of metal material such as steel, steel alloys, brass, tungsten, or other high density materials (i.e., col. 8, lines 33-48). The arrangement in Galloway is likewise intended to improve the mass distribution and optimize the moment of inertia of the club head (i.e., col. 5, lines 8-13). In view of the teachings in Galloway, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘210 patent by co-molding the weight structure with the aft body and providing a high density metallic material for the weight in order to effectively relocate the center of gravity through a manipulation of the weight distribution. Note that the claimed “co-molded” feature reflects a product-by-process limitation and that the incorporation of such a process limitation as part of the claimed invention of the prior ‘210 patent would have been obvious when considering the materials set forth for the aft body and the processes relied upon to form both the aft body and the weight structure. For instance, forming the aft body from thermoplastic polymer materials, as is the case in the claimed invention of the ‘210 patent, would have guided the skilled artisan to use a process such as co-molding for ease of construction. Also, see MPEP 2113.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,977 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”) and also in view of USPN 9,033,822 to DeMille et al (hereinafter referred to as “DeMille”).
Claims 1-20 of the ‘977 patent require several of the limitations recited in claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 11 of the instant application including: “a front body including a strike face defining a ball striking surface, a hosel, and a frame that at least partially surrounds the strike face and extends rearward from a perimeter of the strike face away from the ball striking surface; a rear body coupled to the front body to define a hollow cavity therebetween… the strike face and frame are formed from a thermoplastic composite comprising a thermoplastic polymer having a plurality of discontinuous fibers embedded therein”.
Also, on one hand, the claims of the ‘977 patent require more elements than the instant claims. For example, the ‘977 patent claims further require “a gate located between the horizontal axis and the crown; an embossed channel extending from a portion of the strike face nearest to the gate toward the geometric center of the strike face, the embossed channel protruding from the strike face rear surface away from the ball striking surface” and “wherein each of the plurality of reinforcing elements have a diameter and at least a first subset of the plurality of reinforcing elements are arranged in a parallel arrangement; wherein adjacent reinforcing elements of the first subset of the plurality of reinforcing elements are spaced apart from each other by a minimum distance; and wherein the minimum distance is at least two times an average diameter of the first subset of reinforcing elements”.
On the other hand, the claims of the ‘977 patent lack the claimed feature “the thermoplastic composite is 30% to 70% fibers by volume” (independent claim 1) DeMille teaches that a composite may comprise between 20% to 70% carbon fibers (i.e., col. 10, lines 8-20). DeMille further teaches that his inventive carbon fiber material “allows for more design freedom in composite laminate parts, as it permits more complex layups, reduces minimum wall thickness, reduces interlaminar shear stress, and improves optimization for relevant load cases and applications. When the material is used in connection with a laminate, the desired goal is to reduce the thickness of the plies to improve the resulting part” (i.e., col. 10, lines 32-38). In view of the teachings in DeMille, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the claimed invention of the ‘977 patent by including 30% to 70% fibers by volume as part of the thermoplastic composite, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that the % fiber content would have strengthened the thermoplastic composite material and would have helped to improve the molding process of the strike face and the frame of the ‘977 patent. Also, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
The claims of the ‘977 patent further lack the claimed features “a weight structure” (independent claim 1), “wherein the weight structure comprises a removable weight” (claim 9); and “wherein the weight structure comprises a mass between 50 and 80 grams” (claim 11). Here, Stokke shows an arrangement in which an aft body of the club head includes a weight structure (2700) including a metallic removable weight (2790) that may comprise a mass of about 50 grams (i.e., see paragraphs [0062], [0063] and [0068]). The placement of the weight tends to alter the center of gravity of the club head and the moment of inertia (i.e., in paragraph [0061], Stokke provides an example of how locating the weight structure closer to the heel creates a decrease in hosel MOI, thereby allowing easier turning of the club head about the hosel axis). In view of the teaching in Stokke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘977 patent by incorporating a weight structure with a removable weight of between about 50 grams to 80 grams, the motivation being to provide a weight distribution that desirably alters the center of gravity and the moment of inertia for improved club head performance.
As to the remaining limitations in claims 1-4 and 7, note the following comments:
As to independent claim 1, see claims 1 and 11 of the ‘977 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 2 of the ‘977 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 4 of the ‘977 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 5 of the ‘977 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 7 of the ‘977 patent.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,977 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”) and also in view of USPN 9,033,822 to DeMille et al (hereinafter referred to as “DeMille”) and also in view of USPN 7,938,742 to Galloway et al (hereinafter referred to as “Galloway”).
The claims of the prior ‘977 patent, as modified by Stokke and DeMille, lack the additional features of “wherein the weight structure is co-molded with the rear body” (claim 8) along with “wherein the removable weight can comprise a metallic material chosen from the group consisting of steel, tungsten, aluminum, titanium, bronze, brass, copper, gold, platinum, lead, silver, and zinc” (claim 10).
Although Stokke does not specifically address the materials of the weight as well as the co-molded feature, note that Galloway teaches that a weight structure positioned in the aft body may be co-molded with the aft body during the manufacturing process and that the weight structure may include a weight (50) formed of metal material such as steel, steel alloys, brass, tungsten, or other high density materials (i.e., col. 8, lines 33-48). The arrangement in Galloway is likewise intended to improve the mass distribution and optimize the moment of inertia of the club head (i.e., col. 5, lines 8-13). In view of the teachings in Galloway, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘977 patent by co-molding the weight structure with the aft body and providing a high density metallic material for the weight in order to effectively relocate the center of gravity through a manipulation of the weight distribution. Note that the claimed “co-molded” feature reflects a product-by-process limitation and that the incorporation of such a process limitation as part of the claimed invention of the prior ‘977 patent would have been obvious when considering the materials set forth for the aft body and the processes relied upon to form both the aft body and the weight structure. For instance, forming the aft body from thermoplastic polymer materials, as is the case in the claimed invention of the ‘977 patent, would have guided the skilled artisan to use a process such as co-molding for ease of construction. Also, see MPEP 2113.
Claims 12-14, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,977 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”).
Claims 1-20 of the ‘977 patent require several of the limitations recited in claims 12-14, 18 and 20 of the instant application including: “a front body including a strike face defining a ball striking surface, a hosel, and a frame that at least partially surrounds the strike face and extends rearward from a perimeter of the strike face away from the ball striking surface; a rear body coupled to the front body to define a hollow cavity therebetween… the strike face and frame are formed from a thermoplastic composite comprising a thermoplastic polymer having a plurality of discontinuous fibers embedded therein”.
Also, on one hand, the claims of the ‘977 patent require more elements than the instant claims. For example, the ‘977 patent claims further require “a gate located between the horizontal axis and the crown; an embossed channel extending from a portion of the strike face nearest to the gate toward the geometric center of the strike face, the embossed channel protruding from the strike face rear surface away from the ball striking surface” and “wherein each of the plurality of reinforcing elements have a diameter and at least a first subset of the plurality of reinforcing elements are arranged in a parallel arrangement; wherein adjacent reinforcing elements of the first subset of the plurality of reinforcing elements are spaced apart from each other by a minimum distance; and wherein the minimum distance is at least two times an average diameter of the first subset of reinforcing elements”.
On the other hand, the claims of the ‘977 patent lack the claimed features “a weight structure” (independent claim 12), “wherein the weight structure comprises a removable weight” (claim 18); and “wherein the weight structure comprises a mass between 50 and 80 grams” (claim 20). Here, Stokke shows an arrangement in which an aft body of the club head includes a weight structure (2700) including a metallic removable weight (2790) that may comprise a mass of about 50 grams (i.e., see paragraphs [0062], [0063] and [0068]). The placement of the weight tends to alter the center of gravity of the club head and the moment of inertia (i.e., in paragraph [0061], Stokke provides an example of how locating the weight structure closer to the heel creates a decrease in hosel MOI, thereby allowing easier turning of the club head about the hosel axis). In view of the teaching in Stokke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘977 patent by incorporating a weight structure with a removable weight of between about 50 grams to 80 grams, the motivation being to provide a weight distribution that desirably alters the center of gravity and the moment of inertia for improved club head performance.
As to the remaining limitations in claims 12-14, note the following comments:
As to independent claim 12, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘977 patent.
As to claim 13, see claims 1 and 2 of the ‘977 patent.
As to claim 14, see claim 4 of the ‘977 patent.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,977 in view of US PUBS 2017/0128794 to Stokke et al (hereinafter referred to as “Stokke”) and also in view of USPN 7,938,742 to Galloway et al (hereinafter referred to as “Galloway”).
The claims of the prior ‘977 patent, as modified by Stokke, lack the additional features of “wherein the weight structure is co-molded with the rear body” (claim 17) along with “wherein the removable weight can comprise a metallic material chosen from the group consisting of steel, tungsten, aluminum, titanium, bronze, brass, copper, gold, platinum, lead, silver, and zinc” (claim 19).
Although Stokke does not specifically address the materials of the weight as well as the co-molded feature, note that Galloway teaches that a weight structure positioned in the aft body may be co-molded with the aft body during the manufacturing process and that the weight structure may include a weight (50) formed of metal material such as steel, steel alloys, brass, tungsten, or other high density materials (i.e., col. 8, lines 33-48). The arrangement in Galloway is likewise intended to improve the mass distribution and optimize the moment of inertia of the club head (i.e., col. 5, lines 8-13). In view of the teachings in Galloway, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the claimed invention of the prior ‘977 patent by co-molding the weight structure with the aft body and providing a high density metallic material for the weight in order to effectively relocate the center of gravity through a manipulation of the weight distribution. Note that the claimed “co-molded” feature reflects a product-by-process limitation and that the incorporation of such a process limitation as part of the claimed invention of the prior ‘977 patent would have been obvious when considering the materials set forth for the aft body and the processes relied upon to form both the aft body and the weight structure. For instance, forming the aft body from thermoplastic polymer materials, as is the case in the claimed invention of the ‘977 patent, would have guided the skilled artisan to use a process such as co-molding for ease of construction. Also, see MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571)-270-1775. 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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711