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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 67-73 are newly added.
Claims 1-46, 57, 59-60, 62, and 64-65 are cancelled.
In view of amendment, filed on 12/31/2025, the following objections / rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 10/01/2025.
Objections to claims 54, 57, 59-60, and 66.
Rejection of claims 58 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
In view of amendment, filed on 12/31/2025, and newly added claims 68-73, the following restriction of the claims is necessitated for the reasons provided below:
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claims 68-73 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 47-56, 58, 61, 63, 66, and 67 are drawn to a first method for manufacturing panels.
Group II, claim(s) 68-73 are drawn to a second method for manufacturing panels.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I (claim 47) and group II (claim 68) lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “providing a substrate in a continuous manner by an extrusion process applying a flat die wherein the substrate comprises a decorative top layer; removing a portion of the material by a continuously operated removal means wherein the removal means forms recesses in a downward directed surface of the material; and providing the decorative top layer on an upward directed surface of the material opposite the downward directed surface”, these technical features are not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Baert et al. (NL 2025119) in view of Pervan WO (2014/007738).
For a complete details of the above prior art analysis, please see the prior art rejection of claim 47 under requirements of 35 U.S.C. 103 presented below in pages 9-12.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 68-73 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 47 recites “removing a portion of said substrate by a removal means” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “a removal means” associated with “removing a portion of said substrate”. Specification recites “scraping tool” and “sawing tool” as corresponding structural limitations for the claimed “removal means”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 47-56, 58, 61, 63, and 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 47 recites “wherein said removing from the substrate is performed in-line with the extrusion process at a distance from said flat die”, in 10th line, which is not described in the specification, and therefore, claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 47-56, 58, 61, 63, and 66-67 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.
Amended claim 47 recites “providing said substrate … by an extrusion process applying a flat die” which renders the claim vague and indefinite because neither claims nor specification defines how “a flat die” can be applied to “an extrusion process”. Does the claim mean “providing said substrate … by an extrusion process by a flat die”? Clarification is requested.
Amended claim 47 recites the limitation of “the depth and/or spacing of said recesses is varied” in 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 47 fails to define “a depth and/or spacing of said recesses is varied”.
Further, in amended claim 47, the recitation of “depth” and/or “spacing” of said “recesses is varied” renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear that how a singular “depth” and/or “spacing” does refer to a plural “recesses” and how the plural “recesses” does connect to “is varied”? Clarification is requested.
Amended claim 47 recites the limitation of “the downward directed surface” in 13th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 47 fails to disclose “a downward directed surface”.
Claim 63 recites the limitation of “the final dimensions of the panel” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claims 62 and 47 fail to disclose “final dimensions of a panel” as neither claim disclose an individual “panel” and also its “dimensions”.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 47-56, 58, 61, 63, and 66-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (NL 2025119), prior art submitted by Applicant, in view of Pervan WO (2014/007738).
As to claim 47, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) discloses a method for manufacturing panels (1, claim 28 and Fig. 5b) comprising a substrate (3, Fig. 5b) and a decorative top layer (2, claim 25), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
- providing the substrate (3, Fig. 5b) in a continuous manner at least in part by an extrusion process (p. 10, lines 23-27) by a flat die (extruders are included with a die, at their output, and the die can be considered a flat die while there is no further definition for structure of the flat die in either claims or the specification of the application);
[AltContent: textbox (A substrate (3))][AltContent: textbox (A decorative top layer (2))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recesses (19a, 19b, 19c) are formed in a downward directed surface of the substrate wherein a depth and spacing of the recesses are varied)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
136
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- removing a portion of the substrate (3, Fig. 5b) (see page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34) forming one or more recesses (19a, 19b, 19c, Fig. 5b) in a downward directed surface of the substrate (3, Fig. 5b), wherein a depth and/or spacing of each recess is varied (wherein the depth of at least two cavities is different, see claim 14 and Fig. 5b);
- wherein a decorative top layer is provided on an upward directed surface of said substrate (3, see claim 26 and Fig. 5b), the upward directed surface being opposite to a downward directed surface (see claim 28 and Fig. 5b and page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34)
Baert et al. (NL ‘119) discloses at least one cavity is formed during the extrusion process. (see page 10, lines 29-30) and further discloses it is also conceivable that at least on cavity is formed substantially immediately after an extrusion process. (see page 10, lines 33-34) Further, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) recites when it is referred to a cavity also the terms groove, slot, recess, opening, channel and/or depression could be used. The cavity is typically a cut-out part of the panel. Such cavity could either be formed during production of the panel or can be carved or cut-out afterwards. (see page 3, lines 22-25) therefore, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose removing a portion of the substrate, however, is silent on disclosing a removal means for removing a portion of the substrate (3, Fig. 5b), as claimed in claim 47.
In the analogous art, Pervan (WO ‘738) discloses an apparatus for producing floor panels wherein a decorative paper 2b and a wear resistant transparent overlay paper 2a are impregnated with a thermosetting resin, such as melamine, and are applied on the upper part of a HDF core 3. A balancing paper 4 impregnated with a melamine resin, general called backing, is applied on the backside of a HDF core. The core 3 with the upper 2 and lower 4 layers is moved into a press 5 and pressed under heat and pressure such that the thermosetting resins are cured and the layers are attached to the core. See page 2, lines 23-28 and figs. 1a – 1b.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A decorative top layer (2))][AltContent: textbox (Panel (1))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Heating press (5))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A substrate (3) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
396
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
310
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotational cutting devices (20a, 20b, 20c) as removal means for removing a portion of the substrate (3))][AltContent: textbox (Removed portions (19) of substrate (3))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Removed portions (19) of substrate (3))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
210
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pervan WO (‘738) discloses a vertical core grooves 19a, 19b, with an opening toward the rear side or the panel, may be formed on the rear side in the backing layer 4 and into the core 3 that may be a wood-based board such as for example HDF, chipboard or plywood. The core may also comprise plastic material. Such forming may be made with rotating saw blades 20a as shown in figure 2d. Carving may also be used. The panels are generally machined with the surface layer 2 pointing downwards. The jumping saw blade is displaced towards the panel 20a from above, or below if the surface layer 2 is pointing upwards, and away from the panel 20c when the panel moves relative the rotating saw blades. (see page 10, lines 4-13)
Therefore, as to claim 47, Pervan WO (‘738) discloses a method for manufacturing panels (1) comprising a substrate (3) and a decorative top layer (2), wherein the method comprises the following steps of
- providing the substrate (3) in a continuous manner at least in part by an extrusion process (see page 6, claim 22) by a flat die (extruders are included with a die, at their output, and the die can be considered a flat die while there is no further definition for structure of the flat die in either claims or the specification of the application);
- removing a portion of the substrate (3) continuously operated by a removal means (20a, 20b, 20c), (see page 10, lines 4-13) wherein the removal means (20a, 20b, 20c) forms one or more recesses (19) in a downward directed surface of the substrate (3, see the above annotated figures)
- wherein the removing from the substrate (3) is performed in-line with the extrusion process (see page 6, claim 22) at a distance from the die (claim 22: at least one cavity is formed substantially immediately after an extrusion process which can be concluded that there is a distance between the removal means (20a, 20b, 20c) and the die.
As to claim 52, Pervan WO (‘738) discloses the removal means (20a, 20b, 20c) is a scraping tool or sawing tool. (See Fig. 7a)
As to claim 53, Pervan WO (‘738) teaches the removal means (20a, 20b, 20c) is at least one scraping tool, wherein the scraping tool (20a, 20b, 20c) is positionable. See pages 2d and 7a)
As to claim 54, Pervan WO (‘738) discloses the scraping tool (20a, 20b, 20c) is provided on a support means, the at least one scraping tool (20a, 20b, 20c) being put forth and/or retractable.
As to claim 58, Pervan WO (‘738) discloses a decorative top layer (2) comprises at least a decorative film (2b), at least a wear layer (2a) on the top of the decorative film (2b), and a lacquer layer as an uppermost layer of the decorative top layer (2). (see page 1, lines 24-25)
As to claim 63, Pervan WO (‘738) teaches the method further includes providing coupling means (rotational cutting devices 20a, 20b, 20c) onto the edges. (See Fig. 7a)
As to claim 63, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) teach providing the coupling means (rotational cutting devices 20a, 20b, 20c) includes sawing. (See Fig. 7a)
As to claim 66, Pervan WO (‘738) discloses the providing the coupling means (rotational cutting devices 20a, 20b, 20c) is performed after the removing the portion of the substrate (3). (see page 1, lines 24-25)
As to claim 67, Pervan WO (‘738) teach the recesses (19, Fig. 7a) have a quadrangular shape (see the above annotated Fig. 7a), and wherein the depth of the one or more recesses (19, Fig. 7a) increases from an edge of the panels towards a center of the panels. (See Fig. 7a)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to properly complete the removing step of Baert et al. (NL ‘119) through providing a removal means (20a, 20b, 20c) for removing a portion of the substrate in order to reduce the weight and material content of the panels while maintaining the stability, impact resistance and the strength which is needed to resist the heat and pressure from the pressing, as suggested by Pervan WO (‘738).
As to claim 48, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose the portion of the substrate (3) is displaced from its original position within the extruded substrate layer to form another part of the substrate (3). (See p. 3, lines 25-29 and p. 10, lines 33-34)
As to claim 49, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose the portion of the substrate (3) is displaced such that the substrate (3) is provided with one or more recesses (cavities 19a-c, Fig. 5b), wherein the displaced portion forms a plurality of protrusions, ribs and/or ridges (19a-c, Fig. 5b) on the downward directed surface.
As to claim 50, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) teach the plurality of protrusions, ribs and/or ridges (19a-c, Fig. 5b) circumscribe and/or demarcate at least one edge of the one or more recesses (cavities 19a-c, Fig. 5b).
As to claim 51, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose a mean diameter of circumscribed circle of the one or more recesses (19a-c, Fig. 5b) and a mean width of the protrusions (19a-c, Fig. 5b), ribs and/or ridges (19a-c, Fig. 5b) are related according to a ratio between 2:1 and 10:1. (see p. 7, lines 30-31)
As to claim 55, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) teach the part of said substrate (3) is only partially consolidated prior to the step of removing the portion of said substrate (3). (see p. 11, lines 21-25)
As to claim 56, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose the part of the substrate (3) is fully consolidated prior to the step of removing of the portion of said substrate (3). (see page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34)
As to claim 61, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose the removing is executed on a larger substrate material comprising substrate material of a plurality of panels (1). (see page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34)
As to claim 63, Baert et al. (NL ‘119) disclose dividing of the larger substrate material into pieces having about final dimensions of the panel (1), the substrate material comprising edges. (see page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/31/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Neither Baert nor Pervan, nor their combination, discloses a removal means that operates continuously on a continuously extruded substrate while varying recess depth and/or spacing without stopping the line. There is no evidence among the cited references of Baert and Pervan describing such continuous operation or dynamic variation of the recess geometry in-line with extrusion.” (Remarks: page 11, first paragraph)
This is not found persuasive. Baert et al. (NL ‘119) discloses removing a portion of the substrate (3, Fig. 5b) (see page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34) forming one or more recesses (19a, 19b, 19c, Fig. 5b) in a downward directed surface of the substrate (3, Fig. 5b), wherein a depth and/or spacing of each recess is varied (wherein the depth of at least two cavities is different, see claim 14 and Fig. 5b), and further, Pervan (WO ‘738) discloses removing a portion of the substrate (3) continuously operated by a removal means (20a, 20b, 20c), (see page 10, lines 4-13) wherein the removal means (20a, 20b, 20c) forms one or more recesses (19) in a downward directed surface of the substrate (3, see the above annotated figures). Therefore, a combination of Baert et al. (NL ‘119) in view of Pervan (WO ‘738) disclose a removal means that operates continuously on a continuously extruded substrate while varying recess depth and/or spacing and a continuous operation or dynamic variation of the recess geometry in-line with extrusion.” (Remarks: page 11, first paragraph)
Further, Applicant argues “the combination does not disclose, and the rejection does not identify, any passage suggesting a removal step that is performed continuously in-line with extrusion, at a distance from a flat die, as required by claim 47”. (Remarks: page 11, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs)
This is not found persuasive. Baert et al. (NL ‘119) teach providing the substrate (3, Fig. 5b) in a continuous manner at least in part by an extrusion process (p. 10, lines 23-27) by a flat die (extruders are included with a die, at their output, and the die can be considered a flat die while there is no further definition for structure of the flat die in either claims or the specification of the application)
Also, Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 48 and 49-51 were fully considered but are not persuasive as it was clearly indicated in the body of the above rejections, the disclosure of claims 48, 49-51 are fully covered by the citations of Baert et al. (NL ‘119) in page 3, lines 25-29 and page 10, lines 33-3 and Fig. 5b.
Also, Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 61, 63, and 66 were fully considered but are not persuasive as it was clearly indicated in the body of the above rejections, the disclosure of claims 61, 63, and 66 are fully covered by the citations of Baert et al. (NL ‘119) in page 10, lines 29-30 and lines 33-34.
Therefore, the above rejections of claims 47-56, 58, 61, 63, and 66-67 are maintained for the purpose of the record.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 D. 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. 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
Prosecution Insights