Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the two or more robotic units are configured to simultaneously perform different manufacturing steps at both sides of the wind turbine blade during manufacture, and wherein a control unit is configured to coordinate movements of the two or more robotic units to enable simultaneous performance of the different manufacturing steps during manufacture. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of skill in the art that the inventor had possession of these limitations.
While Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches the robotic units can be designed to perform a number of manufacturing steps, the originally filed disclosure does not convey designing or outfitting the robotic arms so that they perform different manufacturing steps simultaneously. Contrarily, Applicant’s originally filed specification teaches multiple robotic units so that both sides of the blade can be processed simultaneously in order to save on time and cost (paras. [0027]-[0028]), however, the manufacturing step performed at both sides of the blade is the same (para. [0117]). Thus, Applicant’s originally filed disclosure suggests to one of skill in the art that the multiple robotic units are to perform a single manufacturing step quicker—not to perform different manufacturing steps simultaneously. As such, Applicant’s disclosure does not reasonably convey that Applicant considered performing different manufacturing steps simultaneously with the two robotic units, and that the processor was programmed to do so.
Claims 2-13 and 15-16 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-13 and 15-16 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites one or more two or more robotic units attached to the frame for performing manufacturing steps for manufacturing the wind turbine blade, two or more robotic units attached to the frame for performing manufacturing steps for manufacturing the wind turbine blade. The phrase “one or more two or more” is confusing. In addition, the same limitation is repeated twice.
Claim 10 recites a control unit. It is unclear if this is referring to the control unit introduced in claim 1, or is introducing a second control unit. The examiner recommends amending this to recite “the control unit” or “a second control unit”.
Claim 12 recites a manufacturing step. It is unclear if this is referring to one of the manufacturing steps introduced in claim 1, or is introducing another manufacturing step. It is also unclear if the control unit of claim 12 is referring to the control unit of claim 1 or of claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the blade shell.
Claims 2-9, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected for depending from at least one of claims 1, 10, 12, and 15.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2013/0178134 (“Eriksen”).
Regarding claim 1, Eriksen discloses a gantry system for manufacturing a wind turbine blade (fig. 1, paras. [0001] & [0022]), the gantry system comprising a frame (7/7’/16) for bridging the wind turbine blade in a cross-section direction of the wind turbine blade during manufacture (fig. 4, para. [0033]), wheels rotatably attached to the frame for locomotion of the gantry system (para. [0033]), and two or more robotic units (2/2’) attached to the frame for performing manufacturing steps for manufacturing the wind turbine blade (figs. 1 & 4, paras. [0029]-[0030] & [0033]-[0034]), and wherein a control unit is configured to coordinate movements of the two or more robotic units to enable simultaneous performance of the … manufacturing steps during manufacture (fig. 4, para. [0033]-[0034]).
Claim 1 also recites the two or more robotic units are configured to simultaneously perform different manufacturing steps at both sides of the wind turbine blade during manufacture. Each of the robotic arms is capable of abrading and/or vacuuming (para. [0029]). Thus, the two robotic arms are capable of simultaneously performing an abrading step and a vacuuming step (e.g. vacuuming dirt/dust/debris) at both sides of the blade since each of the arms are independently operable in order to allow the arms to perform operations on different sides/areas of the wind turbine blade (fig. 4, para. [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Eriksen further discloses the one or more robotic units each comprise a robotic arm, configured to move a tool center point of the robotic arm in six degrees of freedom (figs. 1-2 & 4, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Eriksen further discloses the wheels are arranged in two- lanes and/or the gantry system is configured such that during manufacture of the wind turbine blade at least one wheel of the gantry system is arranged on each side of the wind turbine blade in the cross-section direction of the wind turbine blade (fig. 4, para. [0033], wherein wheels are on each of tracks 17 arranged on each side of the wind turbine blade).
Regarding claim 7, Eriksen further discloses at least one of the one or more robotic units is movably attached to the frame for moving the respective robotic unit relative to the frame (figs. 1 & 4, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Eriksen further discloses at least one of the one or more robotic units is movably attached to the frame by a sled (6), the sled being configured for moving the respective robotic unit in a linear direction relative to the frame, and/or at least one of the one or more robotic units is movably attached to a respective one of the side pillars by the sled, the sled being configured for moving the respective robotic unit in a height direction of the gantry system (figs. 1 & 4, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 10, Eriksen further discloses a control unit for controlling the locomotion of the gantry system, a movement of the one or more robotic units relative to the frame of the gantry system and/or a movement of a tool center point of a respective robotic unit (paras. [0031], [0034] & [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Eriksen further discloses a sensor system including one or more sensors for obtaining sensor data of the wind turbine blade during manufacture and/or of the one or more robotic units, wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the locomotion of the gantry system, the movement of the one or more robotic units relative to the frame and/or the movement of the tool center point of the respective robotic unit based on the sensor data, and/or the control unit is configured for controlling a manufacturing step of the wind turbine blade based on the sensor data (paras. [0034]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Eriksen further discloses the control unit is configured for controlling the locomotion of the gantry system, the movement of the one or more robotic units relative to the frame, the movement of the tool center point of the respective robotic unit and/or the manufacturing step based on a predetermined digital model of the wind turbine blade and/or based on a deviation of the predetermined digital model of the wind turbine blade from an actual shape of the wind turbine blade during manufacture obtained by the sensor data (paras. [0034]-[0047]).
Claim 15 recites the manufacturing steps performed by the two or more robotic units include manufacturing steps related to processing at an outer surface of the blade shell. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “steps related to processing” include abrading and cleaning/vacuuming. Eriksen teaches robotic units that are at least capable of abrading and/or vacuuming an outer surface of a blade shell (figs. 1 & 4, paras. [0029] & [0033]).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 6-7, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2011/0214586 (“Wessel”).
Regarding claim 1, Wessel discloses a gantry system for manufacturing a wind turbine blade (fig. 1, paras. [0005] & [0037]), the gantry system comprising a frame (110) for bridging the wind turbine blade in a cross-section direction of the wind turbine blade during manufacture (figs. 1 & 4, paras. [0018] & [0021]), wheels rotatably attached to the frame for locomotion of the gantry system (fig. 1A, paras. [0018] & [0024]-[0026]), and two or more robotic units (120/121) attached to the frame for performing manufacturing steps for manufacturing the wind turbine blade (fig. 1, paras. [0018]-[0019] & [0021]), and wherein a control unit is configured to coordinate movements of the two or more robotic units to enable simultaneous performance of the … manufacturing steps during manufacture ((fig. 1, paras. [0019] & [0043]-[0047], wherein one of skill in the art will reasonable infer that the control unit can move the robotic arms simultaneously).
Wessel fails to explicitly teach the two or more robotic units are configured to simultaneously perform different manufacturing steps at both sides of the wind turbine blade during manufacture. However, this would have been obvious in view of Wessel.
Wessel teaches that it is known for industrial robots to perform a variety of task such as welding, positioning, cutting, routing, grinding, and polishing (para. [0002]).
In this case, Wessel teaches a robotic workcell with two robotic arms, but is silent as to what functions the robotic arms are configured to perform. However, Wessel teaches that it is generally known for robots to perform a variety of tasks. Thus, it would be obvious and predictably for each robotic arm of Wessel to perform a different function (e.g. grinding and polishing). This will predictably allow the workcell of Wessel to perform multiple operations. In addition, since the robotic arms are independently operable on opposite tracks (fig. 1, para. [0019], i.e. one track is on a top of the frame and the other track is on a bottom), the robotic arms are capable of performing the different tasks simultaneously on opposite sides of a wind turbine blade.
Regarding claim 6, Wessel further discloses the frame comprises two base members each having two or more of the wheels (figs. 1 & 1A), two side pillars each connected to a respective one of the two base members (fig. 1, i.e. vertical pillars), and a horizontal beam connecting the two side pillars (fig. 1 illustrates crossbeams), wherein the gantry system is configured such that the two side pillars and the horizontal beam are bridging the wind turbine blade in the cross-section direction of the wind turbine blade during manufacture (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Wessel further discloses at least one of the one or more robotic units is movably attached to the frame for moving the respective robotic unit relative to the frame (para. [0019]).
Claim 9 recites at least one of the one or more robotic units is rotatably attached to the frame by a swing arm, and/or at least one of the one or more robotic units is rotatably attached to a respective one of the side pillars by the swing arm, the swing arm being rotatable around an axis arranged parallel to a height direction of the gantry system for moving the respective robotic unit in a plane perpendicular to the height direction of the gantry system. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim includes only one of the limitations before and after the phrase “and/or”. As illustrated in annotated fig. 1 of Wessel, below, Wessel teaches a robotic arm that is connected to the frame via a swing arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The robotic arm illustrated above comprises multiplic links connected by multiple joints (see also figs. 1A & 2). One of skill in the art would reasonably infer the arm illustrated above swings since Wessel refers to it as a robotic arm and one of skill in the art appreciates that the arms/links of robotic arms rotate via joints (this is also taught in para. [0003] of Wessel). Further, the arm is angled with respect to the frame (indicating that it most likely swings), and when viewing figs 1A, 2, and 3, the swing arm is connected to the frame via a cylindrical attachment (wherein cylindrical attachments commonly allow rotation).
Claim 15 recites the manufacturing steps performed by the two or more robotic units include manufacturing steps related to processing at an outer surface of the blade shell. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above, it is obvious for the robotic units of Wessel to be at least capable of performing grinding and polishing steps—which are both “related to processing at an outer surface of the blade shell.”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2013/0226340 (“Buchstab”).
Regarding claim 11, Eriksen further discloses the control unit is configured for simultaneously controlling the movement of the one or more robotic units relative to the frame and the movement of the tool center point of the respective robotic unit (paras. [0034] & [0047]). However, Eriksen fails to explicitly teach the control unit also simultaneously controlling the locomotion of the gantry system. However, this would have been obvious in view of Buchstab.
Buchstab is also directed to a gantry system with a robot arm controlled by a control device (fig. 6, paras. [0014], [0030], [0032]-[0033] & [0046]-[0048]). Buchstab teaches the control device can also drive the wheels so that the system is autonomous (paras. [0033] & [0046]).
In this case, each of Erikson and Buchstab teach a gantry system with a robot arm controlled by a control device. While Eriksen is silent as to the control device driving the wheels, Buchstab teaches one of skill in the art that it is known to have autonomous gantry systems wherein the control device can drive the wheels. This will predictably allow for a more efficient manufacturing process. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Eriksen so that wheels are driven by the control system such that the system is autonomous.
In the alternative, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel as applied to claim 7, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2018/0170579 (“Scotton”).
Assuming arguendo that Wessel fails to teach the arm illustrated in the annotated figure provided in the rejection to claim 9, above, swings, this would be obvious in view of Scotton.
Scotton is also directed to a movable vehicle comprising a main body/carriage 200 having a robotic arm 306/308 thereon that helps during manufacturing (fig. 3, paras. [0001]-[0002], [0041] & [0046]). The robotic arm is attached to the main body/carriage via plate/arm 302 that rotates about a vertical axis with respect to the carriage (figs. 8-10, para. [0046]). Connecting the arms of the robot 306/308 to the carriage via the swing arm/plate 302 allows the robotic arm to reach a much larger area (figs. 8-10).
In this case, each of Wessel and Scotton are directed to a movable vehicle comprising a main body/carriage having a robotic arm thereon that helps during manufacturing, wherein arms of the robot are connected to the main body via a plate/arm. Scotton teaches that it is known for the plate/arm to swing about a vertical axis, and that this predictably allows the robotic arm to reach a larger area/volume. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Wessel so that the plate/arm that connects the robotic arm to the frame is swingable about a vertical axis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2020/0362827 (“Sahni”).
Regarding claim 16, Eriksen fails to explicitly teach the processing at the outer surface of the blade shell include: installing a leading-edge protection system, vortex generators, or aerodynamic blade add-ons. However, this would have been obvious in view of Sahni.
Sahni is directed to a robot that can autonomously or semi-autonomously service a wind turbine blade (paras. [0003], [0007], [0041] & [0043]). The robot may have a robotic arm or gantry that can have a variety of tools attached thereto to perform a variety of operations, including applying vortex generator tape, vortex generators, protection coatings/paint, leading edge protection tape, etc. (paras. [0003], [0006], [0009], [0044]). These services can increase the efficiency of wind turbines (para. [0002]).
In this case, each of Eriksen and Sahni teach a robotic arm or robotic device that that are configured to perform an operation on a wind turbine blade. Sahni teaches one of skill in the art that robot arms can have a variety of tools attached thereto to perform a variety of services, including applying vortex generators, vortex generating tape, leading edge protection tape, and/or protection tape/coatings. Thus, in order to improve efficiency of the wind turbine blade of Eriksen, it would be obvious to modify the robotic units of Eriksen so that they can have a variety of tools attached thereto, including tools for applying a leading-edge protection tape/coating, and/or to apply vortex generators or vortex generating tape.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to provide additional gantry systems taught by Eriksen to perform different operations, wherein one of the gantry systems has robotic units capable of performing a variety of surface processing steps, including applying a leading-edge protection tape/coating, and/or to apply vortex generators or vortex generating tape. Performing other manufacturing steps with additional gantry systems of Eriksen will predictably allow for an efficient manufacturing process since multiple areas/sides of the wind turbine blade can be worked on simultaneously by respective robotic units.
Claim 1, 6-7, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel in view of Sahni.
Regarding claim 1, Wessel teaches the limitations of claim 1 detailed in the previous rejection to claim 1, above. Wessel fails to explicitly teach the two or more robotic units are configured to simultaneously perform different manufacturing steps at both sides of the wind turbine blade during manufacture. Wessel also fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 15 and 16, of the manufacturing steps performed by the two or more robotic units include manufacturing steps related to processing at an outer surface of the blade shell, and, the processing at the outer surface of the blade shell include: installing a leading-edge protection system, vortex generators, or aerodynamic blade add-ons. However, this would have been obvious in view of Sahni.
Sahni is directed to a robot that can autonomously or semi-autonomously service a wind turbine blade (paras. [0003], [0007], [0041] & [0043]). The robot may have a robotic arm or gantry that can have a variety of tools attached thereto to perform a variety of operations, including applying vortex generator tape, vortex generators, protection coatings/paint, leading edge protection tape, etc. (paras. [0003], [0006], [0009], [0044]). These services can increase the efficiency of wind turbines (para. [0002]).
In this case, each of Wessel and Sahni teach a robotic arm or robotic device that that are configured to perform an operation on a wind turbine blade. Sahni teaches one of skill in the art that robot arms can be attached to a variety of tools to perform a variety of services, including applying vortex generators, vortex generating tape, leading edge protection tape, and/or protection tape/coatings. Thus, in order to improve efficiency of the wind turbine blade of Wessel, it would be obvious to modify the robotic units of Wessel so that they can have a variety of tools attached thereto, including tools for applying a leading-edge protection tape/coating, and/or to apply vortex generators or vortex generating tape. Given this modification, the robotic units are capable of performing different manufacturing steps simultaneously at different sides of a blade.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to provide additional gantry systems taught by Wessel to perform different operations, wherein one of the gantry systems has robotic units capable of performing a variety of surface processing steps, including applying a leading-edge protection tape/coating, and/or to apply vortex generators or vortex generating tape. Wessel teaches that it is known and predictable to provide a plurality of the gantry systems on a manufacturing floor (fig. 4, para. [0033]). Performing other manufacturing steps with additional gantry systems of Wessel will predictably allow for an efficient manufacturing process since multiple areas/sides of the wind turbine blade can be worked on simultaneously by respective robotic units.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons detailed in the previous rejections.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2015/0314890 (“DesJardien”).
Regarding claim 4, Wessel fails to explicitly teach one or more of the wheels are steerable wheels and/or are rotatably attached to the frame such that the respective wheel is rotatable around an axis arranged parallel to a height direction of the gantry system. However, this would have been obvious in view of DesJardien.
Desjardien is also directed to a gantry system having a robotic device and capable of bridging a workpiece and performing manufacturing operations thereon (fig. 3, paras. [0157]-[0158]). Desjardien teaches that the system can comprise driven omnidirection wheels (paras. [0063]-[0064], Desjardien further teaches that using casters is a known alternative (figs. 19-20, paras. [0195]-[0200]).
The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known for casters to be able to rotate 360 degrees and that this allows greater maneuverability and turning.
In this case, each of Wessel and Desjardien are directed to a gantry system having a robotic device and capable of bridging a workpiece and performing manufacturing operations thereon. Each of Wessel and Desjardien teach the system can move via wheels. Desjardien teaches that it is predictable for the gantry to function as intended when at least some of the wheels are casters. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Wessel so that at least one of the wheels are 360 degree swivel casters. With this modification, it would be predictable for the other driven wheels of Wessel to move the gantry system as desired.
Claim 5 recites one or more of the wheels are rotatably attached to the frame such that the respective wheel is rotatable by an angle of at least 180 degrees around the axis arranged parallel to the height direction of the gantry system. This is taught by Desjardien as detailed in the rejection to claim 4, above.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DesJardien.
Regarding claim 4, Eriksen fails to explicitly teach one or more of the wheels are steerable wheels and/or are rotatably attached to the frame such that the respective wheel is rotatable around an axis arranged parallel to a height direction of the gantry system. However, this would have been obvious in view of DesJardien.
Desjardien is also directed to a gantry system having a robotic device and capable of bridging a workpiece and performing manufacturing operations thereon (fig. 3, paras. [0157]-[0158]). Desjardien teaches that the system can comprise driven omnidirection wheels (paras. [0063]-[0064], Desjardien further teaches that using casters is a known alternative (figs. 19-20, paras. [0195]-[0200]).
The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known for casters to be able to rotate 360 degrees and that this allows greater maneuverability and turning.
In this case, each of Eriksen and Desjardien are directed to a gantry system having a robotic device and capable of bridging a workpiece and performing manufacturing operations thereon. Each of Eriksen and Desjardien teach the system can move via wheels. Desjardien teaches that it is predictable for the gantry to function as intended when at least some of the wheels are casters. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Eriksen so that at least one of the wheels are 360 degree swivel casters. Casters will predictably allow the wheels to follow the track of Eriksen, and also allow for more flexibility in the maneuvering of the gantry of Eriksen (e.g. allowing the gantry system to follow a curved track and/or allowing the gantry system to be move and turn when not on a track). Having one set of casters can predictably allow a second set of driven wheels, or an external device, to drive the gantry system.
Claim 5 recites one or more of the wheels are rotatably attached to the frame such that the respective wheel is rotatable by an angle of at least 180 degrees around the axis arranged parallel to the height direction of the gantry system. This is taught by Desjardien as detailed in the rejection to claim 4, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 1, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. Each of applicant’s remarks that are not moot are set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Eriksen fails to teach the simultaneous performance of different manufacturing steps because Eriksen only teaches the robotic units having abrasion heads.
Eriksen teaches the robotic units capable of abrading and/or vacuuming (para. [0029]). Since the robotic units can be controlled independently the units are capable of performing an abrading step and a vacuuming step simultaneously.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights