DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendments to claims 1, 14, and 23, filed 30 March 2026 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 6 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 4, 5, 17, 18, 24, and 25 remain canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14-16, 19-23, and 26-27 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Clam 1, 14, and 23 recite the limitation "such that the tube is not mirrored along a diagonal extending from the first groove to the third groove or a diagonal extending from the second groove to the third groove". The specification and figure 4 of applicant’s drawings define the first groove (132) and third groove (136) as diagonal from each other, but the second groove (134) and third groove (136) are along the same side of the tube and are therefore not diagonal from one another. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as “"such that the tube is not mirrored along a diagonal extending from the first groove to the third groove or a diagonal extending from the second groove to the fourth groove". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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(s) 1-3 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (U.S. 6,345,638) in view of Lipof (U.S. 3,222,841) and Eisenbarth (U.S. 11,680,440).
Regarding claim 1, Warner teaches a tube configured to receive a seal, the tube (4) comprising: a plurality of walls comprising: a first wall (W1 as defined in annotated fig 3); a second wall (W2 as defined in annotated fig 3) perpendicular to the first wall; a third wall (W3 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the first wall; a fourth wall (W4 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the second wall; a first corner wall (C1 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the first wall (W1) to the second wall (W2), wherein the first corner wall (C1), the first wall (W1), and the second wall (W2) cooperatively define a first groove (G1); a second corner wall (C2 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the second wall (W2) to the third wall (W3), wherein the second corner wall (C2), the second wall (W2), and the third wall (W3) cooperatively define a second groove (G2); a third corner wall (C3 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the third wall (W3) to the fourth wall (W4), wherein the third corner wall (C3), the third wall (W3), and the fourth wall (W4) cooperatively define a third groove (G3); and a fourth corner (C4 as defined in annotated fig 3) wall coupling the fourth wall (W4) to the first wall (W1), wherein the fourth corner wall (C4), the fourth wall (W4), and the first wall (W1) cooperatively define a fourth groove (G4); wherein the tube (4) is mirrored about a first longitudinal plane extending parallel to the first wall (W1) such that the first groove (G1) and the fourth groove (G4) are configured to cooperatively receive a seal in a first orientation (G1 and G4 are capable of receiving a seal), and such that the second groove (G2) and the third groove (G3) are configured to cooperatively receive the seal (G2 and G3 are capable of receiving a seal) in a second orientation opposite the first orientation (as G2 and G3 are opposite G1 and G4, the seal would naturally be oriented in an opposite way as well); wherein the tube (4) is further mirrored about a second longitudinal plane extending parallel to the second wall (W2).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Warner is silent as to the first, second, third, and fourth grooves comprising a hook shape such that the tube is not mirrored along a diagonal extending from the first groove (G1) to the third groove (G3) or a diagonal extending from the second groove (G2) to the fourth groove (G4- see claim objection above for examiner’s interpretation of the claim).
Lipof teaches a similar grooved tube that is capable of holding a seal, where the grooves of the tube comprise a hook shape (as seen in fig 2). Utilizing the teaching of Lipof to include a hook shape in the first, second, third, and fourth grooves of Warner would create a tube that is mirrored about longitudinal planes parallel to the first and third walls, but the tube would not be parallel along a diagonal extending from the first groove to the third groove or the second groove to the fourth groove.
Warner and Lipof are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Warner incorporate the teachings of Lipof and provide a tube with groove that comprise a hook feature. Doing so would direct a seal in the groove to be oriented in a specific direction, to utilize the tube as part of a sealing element, as seen in fig 2 of Lipof.
Warner and Lipof are silent as to the material of the tube.
Eisenbarth teaches a framing device that is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base (column 6, lines 15-17).
Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner and Lipof incorporate the teachings of Eisenbarth and provide a tube configured to receive a seal where the tube is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base. Doing so would utilize a lightweight and easy to manufacture material for the tube.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner further teaches wherein the plurality of walls define an internal cavity (as seen in fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner further teaches wherein the internal cavity has a cross shape (as seen in fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner and Lipof further teach wherein the first groove (G1), the second groove (G2), the third groove (G3), and the fourth groove (G4) are uniform (see annotated fig 3, as well as fig 2 of Lipof).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner and Lipof further teach wherein the first wall (W1) and the third wall (W3) are uniform (see annotated fig 3, as well as fig 2 of Lipof).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner and Lipof further teach wherein the first wall (W1) is shorter than the second wall (W2), as taught by the combination of Warner and Lipof above, the hook feature of the grooves teaches the first wall shorter than the second wall.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner further teaches wherein the first wall (W1), the second wall (W2), the third wall (W3), and the fourth wall (W4) have the same thickness (see annotated fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner further teaches wherein the first corner wall (C1), second corner wall (C2), third corner wall (C3), and fourth corner wall (C4) are uniform (see annotated fig 3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Eisenbarth teach the tube of claim 1. Warner and Lipof further teach wherein the first corner wall (C1), second corner wall (C2), third corner wall (C3), and fourth corner wall (C4) are curved (see annotated fig 3 and fig 2 of Lipof).
Claim(s) 14, 16, 19, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (U.S. 6,345,638) in view of Lipof (U.S. 3,222,841) and Hanssen (U.S. 4,676,293).
Regarding claim 14, Warner teaches a first tube (4) comprising: a first wall (W1 as defined in annotated fig 3); a second wall (W2 as defined in annotated fig 3) perpendicular to the first wall; a third wall (W3 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the first wall; a fourth wall (W4 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the second wall; a first corner wall (C1 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the first wall (W1) to the second wall (W2), wherein the first corner wall (C1), the first wall (W1), and the second wall (W2) cooperatively define a first groove (G1); a second corner wall (C2 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the second wall (W2) to the third wall (W3), wherein the second corner wall (C2), the second wall (W2), and the third wall (W3) cooperatively define a second groove (G2); a third corner wall (C3 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the third wall (W3) to the fourth wall (W4), wherein the third corner wall (C3), the third wall (W3), and the fourth wall (W4) cooperatively define a third groove (G3); and a fourth corner (C4 as defined in annotated fig 3) wall coupling the fourth wall (W4) to the first wall (W1), wherein the fourth corner wall (C4), the fourth wall (W4), and the first wall (W1) cooperatively define a fourth groove (G4); wherein the first tube (4) is mirrored about a first longitudinal plane extending parallel to the first wall (W1) such that the first groove (G1) and the fourth groove (G4) are configured to cooperatively receive a seal in a first orientation (G1 and G4 are capable of receiving a seal), and such that the second groove (G2) and the third groove (G3) are configured to cooperatively receive the seal (G2 and G3 are capable of receiving a seal) in a second orientation opposite the first orientation (as G2 and G3 are opposite G1 and G4, the seal would naturally be oriented in an opposite way as well), wherein the tube (4) is further mirrored about a second longitudinal plane extending parallel to the second wall (W2).
Warner is silent as to the first, second, third, and fourth grooves comprising a hook shape such that the tube is not mirrored along a diagonal extending from the first groove (G1) to the third groove (G3) or a diagonal extending from the second groove (G2) to the fourth groove (G4- see claim objection above for examiner’s interpretation of the claim).
Lipof teaches a similar grooved tube that is capable of holding a seal, where the grooves of the tube comprise a hook shape (as seen in fig 2). Utilizing the teaching of Lipof to include a hook shape in the first, second, third, and fourth grooves of Warner would create a tube that is mirrored about longitudinal planes parallel to the first and third walls, but the tube would not be parallel along a diagonal extending from the first groove to the third groove or the second groove to the fourth groove.
Warner and Lipof are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Warner incorporate the teachings of Lipof and provide a tube with groove that comprise a hook feature. Doing so would direct a seal in the groove to be oriented in a specific direction, to utilize the tube as part of a sealing element, as seen in fig 2 of Lipof.
Warner teaches tube 4 is a frame member but both Warner and Lipof are silent as to utilizing the frame member on a panel.
Hanssen teaches a panel body (20) having a top edge (as seen in fig 5) and a bottom edge (as seen in fig 5). The combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen would see the tube 4 of Warner on the top edge of the panel body 20 of Hanssen.
Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner and Lipof to incorporate the teachings of Hanssen and utilize the tube of Warner along the top edge of the panel assembly of Hanssen. Doing so would provide a symmetrical tube with universal grooves that can be utilized in any orientation to attach an accessory to the groove, if desired.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen teach the panel of claim 14. Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen further teach wherein a second tube (a duplicate of tube 4 as taught by Warner) is positioned along the bottom edge (like as seen in fig 5 of Hanssen) of the panel body (20 Hanssen). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second tube that is a duplicate of the first tube, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (B). Since Hanssen teaches a second tube in fig 5, a duplication of the tube that is the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen as taught in claim 14 would be obvious.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen teaches the panel of claim 14. Warner and Lipof further teach wherein the first groove (G1), the second groove (G2), the third groove (G3), and the fourth groove (G4) are uniform (see annotated fig 3 and fig 2 of Lipof).
Regarding claim 23, Warner teaches a first tube (4) comprising: a plurality of walls comprising: a first wall (W1 as defined in annotated fig 3); a second wall (W2 as defined in annotated fig 3) perpendicular to the first wall; a third wall (W3 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the first wall; a fourth wall (W4 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the second wall; a first corner wall (C1 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the first wall (W1) to the second wall (W2), wherein the first corner wall (C1), the first wall (W1), and the second wall (W2) cooperatively define a first groove (G1); a second corner wall (C2 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the second wall (W2) to the third wall (W3), wherein the second corner wall (C2), the second wall (W2), and the third wall (W3) cooperatively define a second groove (G2); a third corner wall (C3 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the third wall (W3) to the fourth wall (W4), wherein the third corner wall (C3), the third wall (W3), and the fourth wall (W4) cooperatively define a third groove (G3); and a fourth corner (C4 as defined in annotated fig 3) wall coupling the fourth wall (W4) to the first wall (W1), wherein the fourth corner wall (C4), the fourth wall (W4), and the first wall (W1) cooperatively define a fourth groove (G4); wherein the first tube (4) is mirrored about a first longitudinal plane extending parallel to the first wall (W1) such that the first groove (G1) and the fourth groove (G4) are configured to cooperatively receive a seal in a first orientation (G1 and G4 are capable of receiving a seal), and such that the second groove (G2) and the third groove (G3) are configured to cooperatively receive the seal (G2 and G3 are capable of receiving a seal) in a second orientation opposite the first orientation (as G2 and G3 are opposite G1 and G4, the seal would naturally be oriented in an opposite way as well), wherein the tube (4) is further mirrored about a second longitudinal plane extending parallel to the second wall (W2).
Warner is silent as to the first, second, third, and fourth grooves comprising a hook shape such that the tube is not mirrored along a diagonal extending from the first groove (G1) to the third groove (G3) or a diagonal extending from the second groove (G2) to the fourth groove (G4- see claim objection above for examiner’s interpretation of the claim).
Lipof teaches a similar grooved tube that is capable of holding a seal, where the grooves of the tube comprise a hook shape (as seen in fig 2). Utilizing the teaching of Lipof to include a hook shape in the first, second, third, and fourth grooves of Warner would create a tube that is mirrored about longitudinal planes parallel to the first and third walls, but the tube would not be parallel along a diagonal extending from the first groove to the third groove or the second groove to the fourth groove.
Warner and Lipof are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Warner incorporate the teachings of Lipof and provide a tube with groove that comprise a hook feature. Doing so would direct a seal in the groove to be oriented in a specific direction, to utilize the tube as part of a sealing element, as seen in fig 2 of Lipof.
Warner teaches tube 4 is a frame member but is both Warner and Lipof are silent as to utilizing the frame member on a plurality of panels.
Hanssen teaches a plurality of panels (20, 22, 24, 26, 28) comprising: a first panel (22) comprising a top edge (as seen in fig 3) and a bottom edge (as seen in fig 3); a second panel (24) comprising a bottom edge adjacent to the top edge of the first panel (22, as seen in fig 3); a third panel (20) comprising a top edge adjacent to the bottom edge of the first panel (22, as seen in figs 3 and 5); Hanssen teaches a panel body (20) having a top edge (as seen in fig 5) and a bottom edge (as seen in fig 5). The combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen would see the tube 4 of Warner on the top edge of the panel body 20 of Hanssen.
Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen disclose the claimed invention except for a second, third, and fourth tube that is uniform with the first tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second, third, and fourth tube uniform with the first tube, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (B).
The second tube (a duplicate of Warner 4) would then be positioned along the bottom edge of the first panel (22, like how is seen in fig 5 of Hanssen); a third tube (another duplicate of Warner 4) would be positioned along the bottom edge of the second panel (24, like how is seen in fig 5 of Hanssen); and a fourth tube (another duplicate of Warner 4) would be positioned along the top edge of the third panel (20, fig 5 of Hanssen). The additional tubes at the edges of adjacent panels would allow for robust sealing between the panel joints.
Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner and Lipof to incorporate the teachings of Hanssen and provide a tube with first and third walls parallel to one another, second and fourth walls parallel to one another, where the tube is mirrored about a longitudinal plane extending parallel to the first wall, and a corner wall that defines a groove to couple the adjacent walls to one another. Doing so would create a tube with grooves that is symmetrical about the top and bottom ends to allow the tube to be utilized in either orientation to attach an accessory to the groove. Providing a tube at the top and bottom of each panel in the assembly would further allow for reinforcement at the edges of the panels, creating a robust assembly.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen teaches the garage door of claim 23. Warner and Lipof further teach wherein the first groove (G1), the second groove (G2), the third groove (G3), and the fourth groove (G4) are uniform (see annotated fig 3 and fig 2 of Lipof).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (U.S. 6,345,638) in view of Lipof (U.S. 3,222,841) and Hanssen (U.S. 4,676,293) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of McMillin (U.S. 6,478,308).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen teaches the panel of claim 14. While Warner and Hanssen teach the first tube (4 of Warner) positioned along the top edge of the panel (20 of Hanssen), it is silent as to how the first tube is coupled to the panel body.
McMillin teaches a similar tube for a panel where the tube is secured to the panel using a suitable adhesive, of which structural tape is an adhesive (column 3, lines 55-57).
Warner, Lipof, Hanssen, and McMillin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen to incorporate the teachings of McMillin and provide structural tape for which to couple the first tube to the panel. Doing so would utilize a secure adhesive to couple the two components together.
Claim(s) 20-22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (U.S. 6,345,638) in view of Lipof (U.S. 3,222,841) and Hanssen (U.S. 4,676,293) as applied to claim 14, 16, and 23 above, and further in view of Eisenbarth (U.S. 11,680,440).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen teaches the panel according to claim 14. Neither Warner nor Lipof nor Hanssen teaches the tube (4 Warner) is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base.
Eisenbarth teaches a framing device that is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base (column 6, lines 15-17).
Warner, Lipof, Hanssen, and Eisenbarth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen incorporate the teachings of Eisenbarth and provide a tube configured to receive a seal where the tube is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base. Doing so would utilize a lightweight and easy to manufacture material for the tube.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Warner, Lipof and Hanssen teaches the panel according to claim 16. Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen disclose the claimed invention except for a second tube with the same construction as the first tube (4 Warner). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second tube with the same construction as the first tube, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (B).
The second tube is therefore a duplicate of the first tube (4 Warner) and comprises a first wall (W1 as defined in annotated fig 3); a second wall (W2 as defined in annotated fig 3) perpendicular to the first wall; a third wall (W3 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the first wall; a fourth wall (W4 as defined in annotated fig 3) parallel to the second wall; a first corner wall (C1 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the first wall (W1) to the second wall (W2), wherein the first corner wall (C1), the first wall (W1), and the second wall (W2) cooperatively define a first groove (G1); a second corner wall (C2 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the second wall (W2) to the third wall (W3), wherein the second corner wall (C2), the second wall (W2), and the third wall (W3) cooperatively define a second groove (G2); a third corner wall (C3 as defined in annotated fig 3) coupling the third wall (W3) to the fourth wall (W4), wherein the third corner wall (C3), the third wall (W3), and the fourth wall (W4) cooperatively define a third groove (G3); and a fourth corner (C4 as defined in annotated fig 3) wall coupling the fourth wall (W4) to the first wall (W1), wherein the fourth corner wall (C4), the fourth wall (W4), and the first wall (W1) cooperatively define a fourth groove (G4).
Neither Warner, Lipof, nor Hanssen teaches the second tube (duplicate of 4 Warner) is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base.
Eisenbarth teaches a framing device that is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base (column 6, lines 15-17).
Warner, Lipof, Hanssen, and Eisenbarth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen incorporate the teachings of Eisenbarth and provide a tube configured to receive a seal where the tube is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base. Doing so would utilize a lightweight and easy to manufacture material for the tube.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Warner, Lipof, Hanssen, and Eisenbarth teaches the panel according to claim 21. Warner and Hanssen further teach a first insulating panel (42 Hanssen) connected to a wall of the first tube (4 Warner) and a wall of the second tube (duplicate of 4 Warner, like as seen in fig 5 of Hanssen); and a second insulating panel (44 Hanssen) connected to a wall of the first tube (4 Warner) and a wall of the second tube (duplicate of 4 Warner, like as seen in fig 5 of Hanssen).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen teaches the garage door according to claim 23. Neither Warner nor Lipof nor Hanssen teaches the tube (4 Warner) is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base.
Eisenbarth teaches a framing device that is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base (column 6, lines 15-17).
Warner, Lipof, Hanssen, and Eisenbarth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of framing elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Warner, Lipof, and Hanssen incorporate the teachings of Eisenbarth and provide a tube configured to receive a seal where the tube is comprised of a fiberglass material with a polyurethane resin base. Doing so would utilize a lightweight and easy to manufacture material for the tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art applied in the previous office action does not teach "cross-sectional profiled of the first groove, second groove, third groove, and fourth groove each comprise a hook shape such that the tube is not mirrored along a diagonal extending from the first groove to the third groove or a diagonal extending from the second groove to the third groove" (interpreted as fourth groove, see claim objection above). Applicant’s amendments to the claims prompted a further prior art search which discovered the art of Lipof. Lipof teaches a similar tube with corner grooves to that of Warner. However, the grooves of Lipof include a hook which is configured to position a seal in a specific direction to enhance sealing between the tube and another member. As the arguments are directed to the previous rejection, they are now moot in light of the art of Lipof, in combination with previously cited prior art, teaching all the claims as amended.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the drawing objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action. However, applicant’s amendments have also introduced claim objections, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights