DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 02/16/2026, claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-13 are pending. Claims 3 and 6 are canceled. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12-13 are currently amended. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-13 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous claim objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
35 USC 103 rejections are maintained in view of the Applicant’s argument. See Response to Argument below.
Claim Interpretation
The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0055355 (“Dodge III et al” hereinafter Dodge III) and US2024/0326314 (Scott), CN110216818A (“Wang et al” hereinafter Wang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 11/17/2025, US2003/0045412 (“Schulz et al” hereinafter Schulz), US2020/0173108 (Zhou) and US2012/0297733 (“Pierson et al” hereinafter Pierson).
Regarding Claim 1, Dodge III teaches a composite flooring plank modification apparatus ([0015]) comprising:
an automatic loader (Figure 14F, unwind station 110 and disposing material into the unwind station [0111]);
a motorized heating station (Figure 14F, heaters 1440A and 1440B) coupled to said workpiece loader (Figure 14F, heaters are coupled to the unwind station 110) having an upper heat source (Figure 14F, infrared heater 1440A and [0140]) and a lower heat source (Figure 14F, infrared heater 1440B and [0140]) and motorized rollers to heat a portion of said workpiece to at least 90 degrees Centigrade (Figure 14F and [0143], the heaters 1440 A and 1440 B typically heat the surface of the material to which they are applied to a temperature of 93° C to about 310° C);
a rotary positive and negative embossing station (Figure 15, laminator 1500) coupled to said motorized heating station (Figures 9A-9B) having a plurality of rollers to exert pressure onto said workpiece to form said workpiece into a desired shape (Figure 15, laminator 1500 includes one or more rollers that presses together the materials [0146]);
a motorized cooling station for receipt of said workpiece (Figure 16, cooling conveyor 1600 and the laminated material passes into the cooling conveyor 1600 [0147]) comprising a system of upper rollers and lower rollers (Figure 16 and [0147], all conveyor comprises of at least one upper roller and one lower roller to move the conveyor belt) with at least one fan to cool said workpiece (Figure 16B, fans 1610 that cools materials [0147]),
wherein said automatic plank loader, said motorized heat station, said rotary positive and negative embossing station, said motorized cooling station are interconnected to fold said workpieces into stair noses and other trim elements. (Figure 9A and abstract).
Dodge III further discloses material travels back and forth in different directions across a series of rollers but fails to teach an automatic loader having a plurality of pneumatic suction cups constructed and arranged to hold a composite flooring plank workpiece; a first unloading station having carrier rollers and a plurality of alignment supports constructed and arranged to move and position each said workpiece from said motorized cooling station and combine like workpieces together into a single nested workpiece, wherein said nested workpiece are grouped in a position to be stacked on a pallet.
However, Scott teaches an automatic loader having a plurality of pneumatic suction cups constructed and arranged to hold a composite flooring plank workpiece (Figure 11 and [0052], the system comprises a plurality of first movement arm 108 where a first movement arm 108 which can be in the form of one of suction cup, mechanical hand, magnet, and more retrieves the flooring 70 from a stack of flooring by vertical movement of the first movement arm 108 (in the direction 114); thus, the plurality of first movement arm formed a plurality of suction cup to hold the flooring); a first unloading station (Figures 5 and 12, square-nose device 10 which comprises of a bull-nose device 200) having carrier rollers (Figure 12, bull-nose device may be configured to secure the flooring to a rotor plate and in between a pair of rollers [0015]) and a plurality of alignment supports constructed and arranged to move and position each said workpiece from said motorized cooling station (Figure 6 and [0047], clamp bar secure and support the second section 74 of the flooring 70 to the second forming plate 16 of the forming panel 12) and combine like workpieces together into a single nested workpiece ([0045], a second step of securing the second section 74 of the flooring 70 to the second forming plate 16).
Dodge III and Scott are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for folding and shaping a flooring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Scott to achieve the desired right angled or cured configuration of the flooring ([0007]-[0008]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to alter or change the shape of the flooring. MPEP 2143.
The modified Dodge III fails to teach upper heat source divided into four independent sections on each side of said motorized heat station and can be accessed by opening a plurality of top covers.
However, Wang teaches upper heat source divided into four independent sections on each side of said motorized heat station (Figure 2, a plurality of heating zone which includes heating zone 1171, heating zone 1172, heating zone 1173, and heating zone 1174) and can be accessed by opening a plurality of top covers (Figure 2, it is implied that the extruder comprises a plurality of top covers to ensure the heat are maintained within each respective zones for heating).
Dodge III and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for shaping floor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Wang to heat the materials with different temperature gradient (page 1, lines 42-49). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known heating design. See MPEP 2143.
The modified Dodge III fails to teach a rotary positive and negative embossing station having a plurality of polyurethane rollers.
However, Schulze teaches a rotary positive and negative embossing station having a plurality of polyurethane rollers (Figure 1, the laser engravable material of the embossing roller might be polyurethane).
Dodge III and Schulze are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for embossing rollers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Schulze to laser engrave pattern upon the embossing rollers to generates pattern on the article ([0007] and [0014]).
The modified Dodge III fails to teach the motorized cooling station comprising said upper rollers are adjustable and free spinning and said lower rollers are driven by a motor to transfer said workpiece at a required rate to maintain said workpiece in the desired shape.
However, Zhou teaches the motorized cooling station (Figure 2) comprising a system of upper rollers and lower rollers (Figure 2, sets of cooling rollers 212 comprises two cooling rollers spaced apart from each other [0049]) said upper rollers are adjustable and free spinning and said lower rollers are driven by a motor to transfer said workpiece at a required rate to maintain said workpiece in the desired shape (Figure 2 and the cooling roller, on the top, of the set of cooling rollers 212 is connected to a second gap adjustment device 2121 configured to adjust the gap between the two cooling rollers. The first gap adjustment device and the second gap adjustment device may be electrical gap adjustment devices. The electrical gap adjustment device comprises a worm gear and a worm, which are fitted by threads. The worm gear is driven by a motor to rotate [0050]; thus, the apparatus discloses by Zhou is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed).
Dodge III and Zhou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for folding and shaping a flooring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Zhou to adjust the gap between two cooling rollers in order to allow for different thickness of product to passes through ([0050]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the cooling roller pairs. MPEP 2143.
The modified Dodge III fails to teach a first unloading station wherein said nested workpiece are grouped in a position to be stacked on a pallet; a second unloading station having a conveyor belt with a plurality of vertical rollers positioned perpendicular to and disposed along said conveyor belt defining slots therebetween, said conveyor belt disposed between said first unloading station and said pallet.
However, Pierson teaches a first unloading station (Figure 2, layer queuing device 50) wherein said nested workpiece are grouped in a position to be stacked on a pallet ([0079]); a second unloading station (Figure 2, out-feed system 40) having a conveyor belt with a plurality of vertical rollers positioned perpendicular to and disposed along said conveyor belt defining slots therebetween (Figures 1 and 2, out-feed system 40 comprises a plurality of vertical rollers), said conveyor belt disposed between said first unloading station and said pallet (Figure 2); said first unloading station and said second unloading station are interconnected to fold said workpieces into stair noses and other trim elements (Figure 1 and abstract).
Dodge III and Pierson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for shaping and packaging a flooring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Pierson to achieve higher rates by reducing the number of layer deposit cycles by stacking more than one layer between each deposit. Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the packaging assembly. MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein each said workpieces are placed into said motorized feeder simultaneously (Scott, Figure 11 and [0052], the system comprises a plurality of first movement arm 108 where a first movement arm 108 which can be in the form of one of suction cup, mechanical hand, magnet, and more retrieves the flooring 70 from a stack of flooring by vertical movement of the first movement arm 108 (in the direction 114); thus, the plurality of first movement arm formed a plurality of suction cup to hold the flooring. Thus, the plurality of suction cup can simultaneously place multiple workpieces).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, Dodge III teaches the laminator system typically feeds material continuously, and sometimes at a substantially constant rate ([0165]) but fails to explicitly teach wherein said motorized rollers feed each said workpiece at a rate of approximately 25 feet per minute.
As the efficiency of operation and rate of the embossing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said feed rate of the motorized roller, with said operating efficiency and rate of the embossing both increasing as the feed rate of the motorized roller is increased, the precise feed rate of the motorized roller would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed feed rate of the motorized roller cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the feed rate of the motorized roller in the apparatus of the modified Dodge III to obtain the desired balance between the operating efficiency and rate of the embossing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1.
Dodge III teaches the heaters 1440 A and 1440 B typically heat the surface of the material to which they are applied to a temperature of 93° C. to about 310° C and other temperatures may be used but fails to explicitly teach wherein the temperature of said upper heating source and said lower heating source is approximately 600 degrees F.
As the efficiency of operation and total heat requirement are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said heating source temperature, with said operating efficiency and total heat requirement both increasing as the heating source temperature is increased, the precise heating source temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed heating source temperature cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the heating source temperature in the apparatus of the modified Dodge III to obtain the desired balance between the operating efficiency and total heat requirement (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
The modified Dodge III fails to explicitly teach a heating source diameter of 5/8 inches. As the efficiency of operation and total heat requirement are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said heating source diameter, with said operating efficiency and total heat requirement both increasing as the heating source diameter is increased, the precise heating source diameter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed heating source diameter cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the heating source diameter in the apparatus of the modified Dodge III to obtain the desired balance between the operating efficiency and total heat requirement (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein said upper rollers feed each said workpiece at 25 feet per minute.
As the efficiency of operation and rate of the embossing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said rate of the upper roller, with said operating efficiency and rate of the embossing both increasing as the rate of the upper roller is increased, the precise rate of the upper roller would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed rate of the upper roller cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the rate of the upper roller in the apparatus of the modified Dodge III to obtain the desired balance between the operating efficiency and rate of the embossing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein said lower rollers have the internal shape of each said workpiece (Zhou, Figure 2, sets of cooling rollers 212 comprises two cooling rollers spaced apart from each other [0049]. Th lower rollers have the internal shape of each said workpiece) .
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein each said workpiece is placed on a first side pallet with a printed part of the floor facing up and a second side pallet with the print facing down and independently place each said workpiece into a motorized feeder (Pierson [0070]).
The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. In this case, the position and orientation of the placement of the pallet is considered as intended use since it does not introduce any new structural limitations to the apparatus. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said second unloading station includes at least one sensor to determine when a group of workpieces are nested, wherein said conveyor belt is indexed by a motor which is activated and advances every time said sensor reads that said nested workpieces are in said slot.
However, Pierson teaches second unloading station includes at least one sensor to determine when a group of workpieces are nested ([0109]), wherein said conveyor belt is indexed by a motor which is activated and advances every time said sensor reads that said nested workpieces are in said slot ([0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Pierson to locate an incoming item at a particular location on the infeed device. Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the transfer of the article. MPEP 2143.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0055355 (“Dodge III et al” hereinafter Dodge III) and US2024/0326314 (Scott), CN110216818A (“Wang et al” hereinafter Wang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 11/17/2025, US2003/0045412 (“Schulz et al” hereinafter Schulz), US2020/0173108 (Zhou) and US2012/0297733 (“Pierson et al” hereinafter Pierson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR100399027B (Jun), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said upper rollers are urethane rubber coated.
However, Jun teaches upper rollers are urethane rubber coated ([0018], rollers are urethane coated roller).
Dodge III and Schulze are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device comprising roller to transfer products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Jun so that the roller has high friction coefficient to improve rotation force ([0018]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0055355 (“Dodge III et al” hereinafter Dodge III) and US2024/0326314 (Scott), CN110216818A (“Wang et al” hereinafter Wang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 11/17/2025, US2003/0045412 (“Schulz et al” hereinafter Schulz), US2020/0173108 (Zhou) and US2012/0297733 (“Pierson et al” hereinafter Pierson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN105415662 (“Zhang et al” hereinafter Zhang), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1 but fails to teach wherein said heating source lines are separated by thermal insulation.
However, Zhang teaches heating source lines are separated by thermal insulation (Figure 2, heating section 5 are separated by the insulation section 6).
Dodge III and Schulze are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for embossing rollers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Zhang to reducing heat transfer between heating source to improves energy efficiency (page 3, lines 49-59).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0055355 (“Dodge III et al” hereinafter Dodge III) and US2024/0326314 (Scott), CN110216818A (“Wang et al” hereinafter Wang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 11/17/2025, US2003/0045412 (“Schulz et al” hereinafter Schulz), US2020/0173108 (Zhou) and US2012/0297733 (“Pierson et al” hereinafter Pierson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP0059840A2 (“Natusch et al” hereinafter Natusch), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 11/17/2025.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Dodge III teaches the composite flooring plank modification apparatus according to Claim 1. Zhou teaches the cooling roller, on the top, of the set of cooling rollers 212 is connected to a second gap adjustment device 2121 configured to adjust the gap between the two cooling rollers (Figure 2). The worm gear is driven by a motor to rotate [0050] but fails to teach a handwheel associated with each said corresponding roller to modify the exerted pressure.
However, Natusch teaches a handwheel associated with each said corresponding roller to modify the exerted pressure ([0014], handwheel controls the distance between two pairs of chains and thus the pressure applied based on the distance between the two pairs of chains).
Dodge III and Natusch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of device for shaping and packaging articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dodge III such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Natusch to moves the rollers ([0014]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way of moving the rollers. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Dodge III does not teach or suggest: modifying rigid planks into structural profiles; maintaining click-lock geometries; forming three-dimensional edges or cantilevered features or processing materials that cannot flex, even in a heated state. The applicant does not rely on continuous roll-to-roll lamination, flexible backing matrices, or vinyl infiltration into porous rubber substrates. The two inventions address different problems, use different material states, and achieve different functional outcomes.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, none of the recited limitation, “modifying rigid planks into structural profiles; maintaining click-lock geometries; forming three-dimensional edges or cantilevered features or processing materials that cannot flex, even in a heated state”, in the Applicant’s argument are part of the claimed limitation. Secondly, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV). The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115). Lastly, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV).
The Applicant argues Dodge III, Scott, Zhou, Pierson, and Schulz do not disclose the limitation “upper heat source divided into four independent sections on each side of said motorized heat station and can be accessed by opening a plurality of top covers” that were previously in dependent claim 3 and now recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. In the Office Action dated 11/17/2025, the Examiner relied upon the teaching of Wang to discloses the recited limitation that were previously present in dependent claim 3 that are now recited in claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. Dodge III, Scott, Zhou, Pierson, and Schulz references are depended upon to discloses other features of the apparatus, see claim 1 rejection above. Furthermore, the Applicant fails to point out suppose error in the rejection of claim 3 against Wang reference. Thus, the rejection is maintained. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues Dodge III, Scott, Zhou, Pierson, and Wang do not disclose the limitation “a rotary positive and negative embossing station having a plurality of polyurethane rollers” that were previously in dependent claim 6 and now recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. In the Office Action dated 11/17/2025, the Examiner relied upon the teaching of Schulz to discloses the recited limitation that were previously present in dependent claim 6 that are now recited in claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. Dodge III, Scott, Zhou, Pierson, and Wang references are depended upon to discloses other features of the apparatus, see claim 1 rejection above. Furthermore, the Applicant fails to point out suppose error in the rejection of claim 6 against Schulz reference. Thus, the rejection is maintained. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights