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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, and 15-19 in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of species was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/2026.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation a piston is provided between the first line of displacer units and the second line of displacer units, such that in the first direction D1 the plurality of absorber units are spaced apart from the piston by the first line of displacer units, and in the second direction D2 the plurality of absorber units are spaced apart from the piston by the second line of displacer units is reliant upon a loop shaped control duct, which requires the second arcuate portion of claim 4 to be constructed. Claim 4 was not elected.
The applicant is reminded of their elected species: A. Embodiment where in the control duct first portion and second portion corresponding first ends are connected via an accurate portion completing a continuous, but open-ended path (claim 3). As an open-ended path was elected, it is impossible for the limitation in claim 16 to be met, and claim 16 is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim 17 is similarly withdrawn as being dependent upon claim 16.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are pending. Claims 4, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because duplicate numbers, 240, and 424, appear in Figs. 3, 4, and 6. It is difficult to know what the applicant is referring to when they reference these numbers. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "410" and "416" have both been used to designate absorber units and a line of absorber units. What is being referred to by 410 and 416 is dependent on the figure as these labels are frequently swapped. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “422” has been used to designate both a line of displacer units, the casing shell, and displacer units. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “500” has been used to designate both the piston and an unidentified block in the top of the second portion (220). This unidentified block is not described in the specification and its function is unknown so a better description cannot be provided. The block is present and labeled in figures 3 and 5. The block is also present in figure 4 but is unlabeled. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because three separate 312 labels are provided in figures 3, 4, and 5. Figure 4 also contains two separate 310 labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 214, 222, 224, and 332. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show, in figure 7, the distinction between absorber units and displacer units, as described in the specification. The current figure shows a line of control units and has four labels for them, 416, 424, 422, and 420. It is unclear how to distinguish what part is what in this figure. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show in figure 10, the external pressure line and the length of the widened section of the second portion as described in the specification. There is a label 1000 on figure 10, but it is unclear what is actually being pointed at as the drawing is too small to determine whether 1000 is a metal rod with a bump or a gas line. There is a label missing on the arrow at the bottom of the figure. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a lack of figure numbers when the label numbers from figures are being used throughout the specification On page 3 line 7, the first portion is being referred to as “710”. This should be “210”. On page 2 lines 31-32, the second arcuate portion is referred to as “230”. This should be “240”, as it was referenced earlier in the paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
1. Claim 3 - system is lined through and should not be. Claim 3 was evaluated under the assumption that this was a
3. Claim 3 – “a arcuate” should be “an arcuate”.
2. Claim 10 – the “control duct” was referred to as “the duct”. Claim 10 was evaluated under the assumption that this was a mistake.
3. Claim 17 – the second direction and first directions have antecedent basis from claim 16. “A second direction and “a first direction” were interpreted as “the second direction” and “the first direction” for evaluation.
4. Claim 17 – the “control duct” was referred to as “the duct”. Claim 17 was evaluated under the assumption that this was a mistake.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “some” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “some control units” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the exact number of control units, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Some controls units is rendered indefinite because if there were infinite number of absorbers and displacers, this claim would be satisfied and if there were only one of each, this claim would also be satisfied. Therefore, there is an infinite number of solutions that would satisfy this claim.
Regarding claim 7, in paragraph 0062 of the specification the applicant provides examples of absorber units and displacer units, which are Boron Carbide and Graphite, respectively. Boron Carbide has a density of 2.5g/cm3 , while Graphite has a density of 1.8g/cm3. With the control units being the same size spheres, the example provided by the applicant in their specification contradicts the limitation in claim 7. It is impossible for the examiner to understand the whether the specification provided or the claim set is correct. Please correct this inconsistency.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "absorber units" and "displacer units" in lines 3-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim should be modeled after claim 16 where absorber units and displacer units are introduced as subtypes of control units. With the current dependency of claim 15, two new objects, absorber units and displacer units, are now inside the control duct in addition to the preexisting control units.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " a piston is provided between the first line of displacer units and the second line of displacer units, such that in the first direction D1 the plurality of absorber units are spaced apart from the piston by the first line of displacer units, and in the second direction D2 the plurality of absorber units are spaced apart from the piston by the second line of displacer units" starting on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the applicant elected the species with an open-ended duct and this limitation requires a loop shaped duct to be implemented. Although claim 16 is withdrawn, this rejection is made to give Applicant the opportunity to fix any errors prior to a future Notice of Allowance and rejoinder.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the piston" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 17 is withdrawn, this rejection is made to give Applicant the opportunity to fix any errors prior to a future Notice of Allowance and rejoinder.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. This claim requires a loop-shaped control duct to satisfy its limitations. Without a loop-shaped control duct, the limitation regarding the placement of the piston cannot be met and no embodiment can satisfy this claim. Therefore, this claim does not further limit claim 15.
While this claim does require claim 15 for its implementation, claim 4 is the correct parent claim, as claim 4 provides the limitation of the second arcuate portion, upon which the piston placement limitation depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Although claim 16 is withdrawn, this rejection is made to give Applicant the opportunity to fix any errors prior to a future Notice of Allowance and rejoinder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 6, 8-9, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duncombe et al. (GB 1098299 A).
Regarding claim 1, Duncombe discloses a reactor control system (see Fig. 1 and 2) for a nuclear fission reactor system, the nuclear fission reactor system comprising a nuclear reactor unit having a reactor core (11) with a central axis extending along the length of the reactor core (11), the nuclear reactor unit comprising a first region provided in the reactor core (11) and a second region provided outside of the reactor core (see the area outside of 11), the reactor control system comprising a control duct (12) having:
a first portion configured to extend through the first region (see 12 inside 11); and
a second portion configured to extend through the second region (see 12 outside 11);
the control duct (12) being filled with a series of control units (14 and 15), each of the control units configured to travel along the control duct (see Fig. 2 compared to Fig. 1 and page 1 lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 2, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses wherein:
the control duct (12) is configured for the translation of control units in a first direction D1 (page 1 lines 88-89 and page 2 lines 1-16) and a second Direction D2 (page 2 lines 26-33);
The first direction D1 being in a direction of travel from the second portion towards the first portion (page 1 lines 88-89 and page 2 lines 1-16) and
the second direction D2 being in a direction of travel from the first portion towards the second portion (page 2 lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 3, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses the reactor control of claim 1, wherein the control duct (12) comprises a arcuate portion which extends between the first portion and the second portion, the first portion, arcuate portion and second portion of the control duct thereby defining a continuous path for passage of the control units (see the shape of 12 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses wherein:
some of the control units (14 and 15) are absorber units (15 and pg. 1 lines 49-53, absorbers), and
some of the control units (14 and 15) are displacer units (14 and pg. 1 lines 46-49, low absorbers).
Regarding claim 8, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses wherein the control units are spherical (14 and 15) and have an external diameter which is the same as, or slightly smaller than the diameter of the control duct.
Regarding claim 9, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses a drive mechanism (16) which in a first mode of operation is operable to drive the control units in a first direction D1 (page 1 lines 88-89) around the control ducts (12) and page 2 lines 1-16 and in a second mode of operation is operable to drive the control units in a second direction D2 (page 2 lines 26-33) around the control duct (12).
Regarding claim 13, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses wherein the control duct has a substantially constant diameter (Figs. 1 and 2 and page 1 lines 69-74).
Regarding claim 15, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses wherein:
a plurality of absorber units (Fig. 2 item 15) are provided in series and adjacent one another along the control duct (12) to form a line of absorber units (15);
and a first plurality of displacer units (14) are provided in series and adjacent one another along the control duct (12) to form a first line of displacer units (14);
and a second plurality of displacer units (14) are provided in series and adjacent one another along the control duct (12) to form a second line of displacer units (14);
the first line of displacer units (14) extend from a first end of the line of absorber units (15), and the second line of displacer units (14) extending from a second end of the line of absorber units (15).
Regarding claim 18, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Duncombe further discloses wherein:
the first portion of the control duct extends substantially parallel to the central axis (as shown in figs. 1-2)
and
the second portion of the control duct extends substantially parallel to the central axis (as shown in figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Duncombe discloses a nuclear fission reactor system (figs. 1-2) comprising: a nuclear reactor unit (e.g., see title), and the reactor control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection, above).
Claims 1 and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West et al. (US 3347747 A).
Regarding claim 1, West et al. discloses a reactor control system for a nuclear fission reactor system (see Fig. 1), the nuclear fission reactor system comprising a nuclear reactor unit (10) having a reactor core (12) with a central axis extending along the length of the reactor core (12), the nuclear reactor unit (10) comprising a first region provided in the reactor core (12) and a second region provided outside of the reactor core (see the area in 10 outside of 12), the reactor control system comprising a control duct (26) having:
a first portion configured to extend through the first region (32); and
a second portion configured to extend through the second region (34);
the control duct (26) being filled with a series of control units (38), each of the control units configured to travel along the control duct (Col. 1 lines 46-56).
Regarding claim 19, West discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. West further discloses a nuclear fission reactor system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a nuclear reactor unit (10), and
the reactor control system of claim 1 (shown above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncombe et al. (GB 1098299 A) in view of Freeman (US 4678628 A).
Regarding claim 7, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above, but does not disclose wherein the absorber units are less heavy than the displacer units.
Freeman does. Freeman is in the same nuclear control unit art area and teaches wherein the absorber units (boron carbide pellets) and the displacer units (stainless steel pellets). While Freeman is silent about the weight of stainless-steel pellets being heavier than boron carbide pellets, one having ordinary skill in the art would know that boron carbide pellets are less heavy than stainless steel pellets of the same size. Thus, Freeman teaches wherein the absorber units are less heavy than the displacer units (Fig 8 items 60 and 32 and col 7 lines 32-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Freeman’s technique of placing displacer units of stainless steel below the line of absorber units made of boron carbide pellets, to modify Duncombe’s reactor control system, prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Using the known technique of placing control units with lower neutron absorption cross-sections below control units with higher neutron absorption cross-sections to compensate for enthalpy rise and the problem of skewing reactivity toward the core top while not causing new problems in the process (Col 3 lines 3-7) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncombe et al. (GB 1098299 A) in view of Brubaker (US 3285821 A).
Regarding claim 10, Duncombe discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above, but does not disclose wherein the drive mechanism comprises a screw with a track for engagement with the control units, such that when the screw rotates, the control units are driven along the duct.
Brubaker does. Brubaker is in the same nuclear control unit art area and teaches a drive mechanism (see especially Figs. 5a-5b) that comprises a screw (87) with a track (non-raised portions of the screw 87) for engagement with connected units, such that when the screw rotates, the connected units are driven along a duct (as shown in Fig. 5b; see also col. 5 lines 27-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to have utilized Brubaker’s screw mechanism for the drive of Duncombe in order to produce a well-known drive mechanism for moving the control units of Duncombe through the duct. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize such a screw mechanism in order to convert rotation into linear translation, thus saving space within the cramped environment of the reactor core and maintaining the containment boundary, as is well-known in the art and as suggested by Brubaker in col. 5, lines 1-9.
Regarding claim 11, Duncombe in view of Brubaker teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Brubaker teaches wherein the screw (Fig. 5b, item 87) is configured to move between a first position in which it is operable to drive the control units, and a second position in which a clearance is maintained between the screw and the control units (Col 5 lines 27-39). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the screw mechanism of Brubaker for the reasons already described above in response to claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571272678. 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.
/K.M.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights