DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for application 18/494,220.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 1-22 are examined.
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 .
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 9, 17, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 9 defines “a pH value below 6, more preferentially below 4.5,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether the value after “more preferentially” is a required range or whether such a value is optional. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations are considered optional and claim 9 only requires a pH value below 6 to be met.
Claim 17 defines “decomposition booster added to the turf, the decomposition booster being adapted to compost the turf,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since claim 14, from which claim 17 depends from, defines a product claim yet claim 17 appears to now define the method step of adding a material to decompose the product of claim 14, thus rendering the claimed invention indefinite as to what type of claim is being defined in claim 17. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations are considered to define a product which includes the artificial turf and a decomposition booster already present thereon. Moreover, claim 18 is rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 17.
Claim 20 defines “the decomposition booster,” which lacks antecedent basis and renders the claimed invention indefinite since claim 20 depends from claim 14 and such a booster is not defined until claim 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus not know whether claim 20 is to depend from another claim or whether claim 20 introduces such a booster therein. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 20 is considered to introduce a booster element to the invention of claim 14.
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(s) 1-6, 11-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Heiler (DE 10 2015113210) in view of Rossing et al. (WO 2007/114686) and Tetrault (U.S. Patent 9,540,777).
Regarding claim 1, Heiler discloses a method of controlling decomposition of an artificial turf installation, the method comprising:
providing an artificial turf installation including a compostable turf comprising synthetic fibers and a compostable carrier structure (paragraph 41 of the English translation discloses the turf #3 can be artificial turf and thus formed from synthetic fibers, where the same paragraph teaches the carrier, or support layer #1, can be formed using reinforcing fibers #2, which are formed from plastic that is configured to be compostable under certain conditions),
Heiler discloses the turf is to comprise of reinforcing fibers #2 extending therethrough and can comprise of artificial turf where such fibers can be constructed from PLA or other plastics so as to not decompose from sunlight, water, or normal use, see paragraphs 41 and 48 of the English translation; however, Heiler does not specifically disclose the artificial turf is compostable. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rossing et al., that the synthetic fiber used to form artificial lawns/turf can be constructed from preprogrammed synthetic fiber which includes a second material component in an amount of 50-100 wt.% of the synthetic fiber, where polylactic acid (PLA) or aliphatic polyester (PES) or mixtures thereof. See page 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also constructed the artificial turf of Heiler to comprise of synthetic fibers that are compostable as the base layer is, as taught in Rossing et al., in order to allow the entire turf to be compostable when the turf has reached its end of life.
Furthermore, Heiler does not disclose adding a decomposition inhibitor on the turf, where the inhibitor functions to reduce decomposition of the compostable turf by microorganisms, where the functionality expires after a defined period of time. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Tetrault, that one can cool synthetic turf using particulate infill materials, such as sand, which includes surface-modifying agents so that when rainfall or irrigation is provided over the turf, moisture will quickly wet out the infill substrate as well as deposit a thin film of water on the infill and lower the temperature of the turf relative to standard synthetic turfs. See col. 6, ll. 30-57. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a decomposition inhibitor to the turf of Heiler, such as infill sand comprising of surface-modifying agents that are configured to cool the turf as taught in Tetrault, in order to increase the life and use of the turf as well as the comfort of those using the turf. Heiler teaches increased heat can be used to assist in the decomposition of the artificial turf and thus cooling such a turf, such as using the method as taught in Tetrault, would thus help reduce the temperature of the turf during hot weather days when the turf is in direct sunlight and thus reduce the chances of decomposition due to such high temperatures and the microorganisms that appear at such higher temps, as taught in Heiler.
Regarding claim 2, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition-inhibiting functionality of the decomposition inhibitor is designed to expire when the defined period of time has elapsed (col. 31, ll. 47-50 of Tetrault discloses the surface-modifying agent/decomposition inhibitor of the turf should be provided in a range that provides enough water to cool the turf for a minimum time period to encompass a full athletic event or practice time, which is considered the defined period of time, where such features would be provided within Heiler as explained above).
Regarding claim 3, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition inhibitor is configured to leave the turf when the defined period of time has elapsed (col. 31, ll. 47-50 of Tetrault discloses the surface-modifying agent/decomposition inhibitor of the turf should be provided in a range that provides enough water to cool the turf for a minimum time period to encompass a full athletic event or practice time, and where col. 32, ll. 58-67 disclose the inhibitor can lose its effectiveness over a designed period of time, where such features would be provided within Heiler as explained above).
Regarding claim 4, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious adding a decomposition booster to the turf, the decomposition booster being adapted to compost the turf (paragraph 15 of the English translation of Heiler discloses that PLA or other plastics can be used for the fibers of the base layer, where such plastics are biodegradable under defined conditions, such as through elevated temperature changes, UV, or bacteria, and thus the decomposition booster would be considered one of such factors which the turf is subjected to in order to compost the turf after its use).
Regarding claim 5, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition booster being added in temporal proximity to an expiration of the defined period of time (as taught in paragraph 12 of the English translation of Heiler, such a decomposition booster is added after the turf has been used and in need of disposal and thus considered added in temporal proximity to an expiration of the defined period of time when the inhibitor would be considered ineffective).
Regarding claim 6, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious prior to adding the decomposition booster removing the compostable turf from the artificial turf installation and dividing the compostable turf into pieces (paragraph 32 of the English translation of Heiler discloses that such base layer is removed from the ground and fed through a composting area where the decomposition booster is added/applied, where such a removal of the base layer from the ground is considered inherently done in pieces due to the size of the field at a sports facility where the base layer is applied). However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Heiler as comprising the step of dividing the turf into pieces, Heiler teaches that such turf is provided in pieces to form a sports field within a sports facility, where all of such sports field cannot be provided all at once within the apparatus which is to apply the elevated temperature or UV or bacteria and thus it would have been obvious to have divided the field and turf into pieces so as to insert such smaller pieces within the apparatus to decompose the turf as needed.
Regarding claim 11, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition booster comprises enzymes adapted for biodegradation of the compostable turf (paragraph 10 of the English translation of Heiler disclose enzymes can be used to decompose the turf).
Regarding claim 12, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition inhibitor comprises an antimicrobial substance, including a HALS-light stabilizer or triclosan or a substance having a porous surface structure adapted to impede the growth of microbes by absorbing the microbes to the porous surface (col. 30, l. 58 to col. 31, l. 9 of Tetrault disclose such a decomposition inhibitor can include antimicrobials, such as silver, where col. 35, ll. 36-50 disclose such an inhibitor comprises of pore spaces to hold substances therein, where such features would be provided within Heiler as explained above).
Regarding claim 13, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition inhibitor comprises at least one of a silver compound, an organoiodide compound, and an organobromide compound, including bromides, and iodides of alkyl, aryl, alkenyl, alkynyl, arylalkyl, arylalkenyl, or arylalkynyl groups (col. 30, l. 58 to col. 31, l. 9 of Tetrault disclose such a decomposition inhibitor can include antimicrobials, such as silver).
Regarding claim 14, Heiler discloses an artificial turf comprising:
synthetic fibers and a compostable carrier structure (paragraph 41 of the English translation discloses the turf #3 can be artificial turf and thus formed from synthetic fibers, where the same paragraph teaches the carrier, or support layer #1 can be formed using reinforcing fibers #2, which are formed from plastic that are configured to be compostable under certain conditions),
Heiler discloses the turf is to comprise of reinforcing fibers #2 extending therethrough and can comprise of artificial turf where such fibers can be constructed from PLA or other plastics so as to not decompose from sunlight, water, or normal use, see paragraphs 41 and 48 of the English translation; however, Heiler does not specifically disclose the artificial turf is compostable. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rossing et al., that the synthetic fiber used to form artificial lawns/turf can be constructed from preprogrammed synthetic fiber which includes a second material component in an amount of 50-100 wt.% of the synthetic fiber, where polylactic acid (PLA) or aliphatic polyester (PES) or mixtures thereof. See page 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also constructed the artificial turf of Heiler to comprise of synthetic fibers that are compostable as the base layer, as taught in Rossing et al., in order to allow the entire turf to be compostable when the turf has reached its end of life.
Furthermore, Heiler does not disclose a decomposition inhibitor separate from the synthetic fibers of the turf, where the inhibitor functions to reduce decomposition of the compostable turf by microorganisms, where the functionality expires after a defined period of time. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Tetrault, that one can cool synthetic turf using particulate infill materials, such as sand, which includes surface-modifying agents so that when rainfall or irrigation is provided over the turf, moisture will quickly wet out the infill substrate as well as deposit a thin film of water on the infill and lower the temperature of the turf relative to standard synthetic turfs. See col. 6, ll. 30-57. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a decomposition inhibitor to the turf of Heiler, such as infill sand comprising of surface-modifying agents that are configured to cool the turf as taught in Tetrault, in order to increase the life and use of the turf as well as the comfort of those using the turf. Heiler teaches increased heat can be used to assist in the decomposition the artificial turf and thus cooling such a turf, such as using the method as taught in Tetrault, would thus help reduce the temperature of the turf during hot weather days when the turf is in direct sunlight and thus reduce the chances of decomposition due to such high temperatures and the microorganisms that come from such high temperatures as taught in Heiler.
Regarding claim 15, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition-inhibiting functionality of the decomposition inhibitor is designed to expire when the defined period of time has elapsed (col. 31, ll. 47-50 of Tetrault discloses the surface-modifying agent/decomposition inhibitor of the turf should be provided in a range that provides enough water to cool the turf for a minimum time period to encompass a full athletic event or practice time, which is considered the defined period of time, where such features would be provided within Heiler as explained above).
Regarding claim 16, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition inhibitor is configured to leave the turf when the defined period of time has elapsed (col. 31, ll. 47-50 of Tetrault discloses the surface-modifying agent/decomposition inhibitor of the turf should be provided in a range that provides enough water to cool the turf for a minimum time period to encompass a full athletic event or practice time, and where col. 32, ll. 58-67 disclose the inhibitor can lose its effectiveness over a designed period of time, where such features would be provided within Heiler as explained above).
Regarding claim 17, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious adding a decomposition booster to the turf, the decomposition booster being adapted to compost the turf (paragraph 15 of the English translation of Heiler discloses that PLA or other plastics can be used for the fibers of the base layer, where such plastics are biodegradable under defined conditions, such as through elevated temperature changes, UV, or bacteria, and thus the decomposition booster would be considered one of such factors which the turf is subjected to in order to compost the turf after its use).
Regarding claim 18, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition booster being added in temporal proximity to an expiration of the defined period of time (as taught in paragraph 12 of the English translation of Heiler, such a decomposition booster is added after the turf has been used and in need of disposal and thus considered added in temporal proximity to an expiration of the defined period of time when the inhibitor would be considered ineffective).
Regarding claim 21, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition inhibitor comprises an antimicrobial substance, including a HALS-light stabilizer or triclosan or a substance having a porous surface structure adapted to impede the growth of microbes by absorbing the microbes to the porous surface (col. 30, l. 58 to col. 31, l. 9 of Tetrault disclose such a decomposition inhibitor can include antimicrobials, such as silver, where col. 35, ll. 36-50 disclose such an inhibitor comprises of pore spaces to hold substances therein, where such features would be provided within Heiler as explained above).
Regarding claim 22, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the decomposition inhibitor comprises at least one of a silver compound, an organoiodide compound, and an organobromide compound, including bromides, and iodides of alkyl, aryl, alkenyl, alkynyl, arylalkyl, arylalkenyl, or arylalkynyl groups (col. 30, l. 58 to col. 31, l. 9 of Tetrault disclose such a decomposition inhibitor can include antimicrobials, such as silver).
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiler in view of Rossing et al., Tetrault, and Lee et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0081808).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the artificial turf fibers can be constructed from PLA (see paragraph 15 of the English translation of Heiler as well as page 4 of Rossing et al.) except for the specific fiber material for the carrier mesh as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lee et al., that biodegradable hybrid turf surfaces can be constructed from a backing, carrier layer from jute (see paragraph 70). Such materials as defined in claim 7 and 19 are commonly used in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have constructed the carrier mesh of Heiler to comprise of a jute fiber, as taught in Lee et al., in order to form a compostable hybrid turf assembly using known materials that are strong enough for use but degrade as needed and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the claimed invention except for the compostable turf comprises a backing of natural latex, or starch-based latex, or agar-agar. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lee et al., that biodegradable hybrid turf surfaces can be constructed from a backing, carrier layer from jute (see paragraph 70) and comprise of a latex coating to stabilize the assembly (see paragraph 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the carrier mesh of Heiler to comprise of a backing of latex, as taught in Lee et al., in order to form a compostable hybrid turf assembly using known materials that are strong enough for use but degrade as needed and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 20, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the claimed invention including the decomposition booster comprises an enzyme adapted for biodegradation of the turf or turf components (paragraph 10 of the English translation of Heiler discloses use of enzymes for decomposition of the turf) except for the compostable turf comprises a backing of natural latex, or starch-based latex, or agar-agar. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lee et al., that biodegradable hybrid turf surfaces can be constructed from a backing, carrier layer from jute (see paragraph 70) and comprise of a latex coating to stabilize the assembly (see paragraph 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the carrier mesh of Heiler to comprise of a backing of latex, as taught in Lee et al., in order to form a compostable hybrid turf assembly using known materials that are strong enough for use but degrade as needed and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiler in view of Rossing et al., Tetrault, and Nakasaki et al. (U.S. Patent 8,445,252).
Regarding claim 9, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the claimed invention except for the decomposition booster comprises an acidic solution having a pH value below 6, more preferentially below 4.5. Nakasaki et al. disclose a compost which includes the use of a fungus that is configured to decompose and decontaminate biodegradable plastics. The compost can include bacteria that is configured to grow in coexistence with the fungus to assist with the composting and removal of harmful elements from the compost. In order to maintain the bacteria in a specific state, such a compost is maintained in a pH-restricted state such that the pH of the compost is lower than the optimal pH for bacteria, which is between 4 to 7 or preferably a pH of 5 to 6. Heiler discloses that multiple decomposition booster methods, including enzymes from organisms, bacteria, and even fungi, can be used to compost the turf and thus it would have been obvious to have optimized the environment where the turf and decomposition booster, such as fungi, are added, such as by providing a pH level of between 5 and 6, as taught in Nakasaki et al., in order to reduce the amount of harmful bacteria within the composting area and thus provide a more environmentally friendly and useable compost when the artificial turf is fully degraded while also maintaining a good environment for the proliferation of the fungus for better decomposition.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiler in view of Rossing et al., Tetrault, and Bonifer et al. (Bonifer et al., Bacillius Pumilus B12 Degrades Polylactic Acid and Degradation is Affected by Changing Nutrient Conditions, Frontier in Microbiology, Vol. 10, Article 2548, Nov. 22, 2019, obtained from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6882738/pdf/fmicb-10-02548.pdf).
Regarding claim 10, Heiler in view of Rossing et al. and Tetrault render obvious the claimed invention except specifically the decomposition booster comprises soil or one or more strains of isolated soil bacteria, in particular bacteria isolated from compost, in particular hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria, in particular one or more bacterial strains selected from the group comprising pseudomonas sp., mucobacterium sp., corynebacterium sp., aeromonas sp., rhodococcus sp., and bacillus sp. Heiler does teach in paragraph 10 of the English translation that bacteria and other microorganisms used in composting can be used in order to decompose the turf as needed. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bonifer et al., that Bacillus sp. is a common and known strain of bacteria commonly used for decomposing biodegradable PLA material. See page 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used bacillus sp. bacteria to decompose the PLA turf material of Heiler, as taught in Bonifer et al., in order to properly degrade and decompose the turf as needed.
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 1-16, 19, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-11, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,851,827. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
claim 1 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 2 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 3 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 4 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 5 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 6 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 7 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 8 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 9 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 10 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 10 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 11 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 10 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 12 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 13 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 8 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 14 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 15 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 16 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 19 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 6 of U.S. Patent ‘827;
claim 22 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘827.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635