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 Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 3/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 2 of page 11 through paragraph 3 of page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Applicant also argues within paragraph 2 of page 12 that “The two arbitrary portions drawn by the Examiner on each protector member (30b, 30c) are certainly not "split" in any sense of the term.” The arguments have been previously presented in at least the previous set of submitted arguments (see for example para 2 of page 12 of previous arguments) and have been previously addressed and identified as not persuasive.
In paragraph 2 of page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are further directed to that Examiner replies on improper hindsight to create hindsight-defined regions. The arguments are not persuasive because Examiner merely maps regions of the prior art’s structure to regions as defined within Applicant’s claim.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 17, in the bottom of page 14 through the top of page 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are persuasive. Please see allowable subject matter.
In paragraphs 2 through 3 of page 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that claims 6-9, 16 each depend from allowable claim 1 and are thus allowable. Respectfully, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 is not currently allowable.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 18, in paragraph 1 of page 16 through paragraph 2 of page 17 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 18.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 19, in paragraphs 3-4 of page 17 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 19.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210372374 A1 (hereinafter Murata) in view of US 20190195203 A1 (Fujioka).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Murata discloses:
A wind turbine blade (2; Fig 1), comprising:
a blade shell (18; Fig 2) having a pressure side (26; Fig 2) and a suction side (24; Fig 2);
and a lightning protection system (para 0010) associated with the blade shell,
the lightning protection system comprising:
a first pin (Annotated Fig 8b), and a second pin (Annotated Fig 8b) adjacent to the first pin (wherein a broadest reasonable interpretation of “adjacent” is “nearby” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent, and these pins are adjacent because they are not the pins which are shown as furthest from one another in Fig 8);
and a metal layer (30A; Fig 8; para 0063: “The first region 30A is constructed of a metal board”) at an outer surface (Fig 8 shows this) of at least one of the pressure side and the suction side of the blade shell (Fig 8 shows this),
the metal layer split into at least a discrete first portion (a portion of 30c at the first pin and excluding any regions contacting or immediately surrounding any other pins; Fig 8) bounded by a first edge (edge of the first pin’s hole) that extends around the first portion and a discrete second portion (a portion of 30b at the second pin and excluding any regions contacting or immediately surrounding any other pins; Fig 8) (Fig 8 shows 30c and 30b are discrete from one another, as are the portions of 30c and 30b described above) bounded by a second edge (edge of the second pin’s hole) that extends around the second portion, and the metal layer including a discontinuity (Annotated Fig 8b) between the first and second portions (Fig 8 shows this);
wherein the first pin extends through the first portion of the metal layer and not through the second portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this);
the first pin being an only pin that extends through the first portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this);
and wherein the second pin extends through the second portion of the metal layer and not through the first portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this),
the second pin being an only pin that extends through the second portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this).
Murata may not explicitly disclose that the first pin and second pin are electrically conductive.
However, Fujioka, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A metal bolt 22 serving as an attachment as well as an electrical connection within a lightning protection system (Fig 4; para 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata to include Fujioka’s teachings as described above, having the first pin and second pin be electrically conductive, in order to serve as an attachment as well as an electrical connection within a lightning protection system (para 0073). Furthermore, it is noted that although Murata is silent that his bolt is made of an electrically conductive material, it is well known and conventional in the art of wind turbines to have fasteners in the blades made of electrically conductive material such as metal for the purposes of fastening components together with fasteners which are made of a typical material such as metal (see, for example, Fujioka). Murata is silent regarding this limitation because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, to have the first pin and second pin made of electrically conductive such as metal for the purposes of fastening components together with fasteners which are made of a typical material such as metal.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8b
Regarding claim 2, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
the discontinuity comprises an overlap region (Fig 8 shows this) where the first portion and the second portion partially overlap (Fig 8 shows this).
Regarding claim 3, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
an electrical component (15; Fig 8),
wherein the first portion of the metal layer is electrically connected to the electrical component by the first electrically conductive pin (Fig 8 clearly shows that the first portion is electrically connected to the electrical component by the first electrically conductive pin via a first conductive plate 35 and member 30d and left-most bolt member 40)
and the second portion of the metal layer is electrically connected to the electrical component by the second electrically conductive pin (Fig 8 clearly shows that the second portion is electrically connected to the electrical component by the second electrically conductive pin via a second conductive plate 35 and member 30c and first conductive plate 35 and member 30d and left-most bolt member 40).
Regarding claim 4, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
the electrical component is a down conductor (15; Fig 8; para 0033) of the lightning protection system.
Regarding claim 5, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
the first electrically conductive pin extends through a first unitary plate (left plate 35 in Fig 8) formed across the metal layer
and the second electrically conductive pin extends through a second unitary plate (middle plate 35 in Fig 8) formed across the metal layer.
Murata may not explicitly disclose that the first unitary plate and the second unitary plate are discs.
However, courts have established that a change in size or shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is regarding “practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (see MPEP 2144.04) which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, any difference in shape between Murata’s “plate” 35 and the “disc” contemplated by claim 5 is held to be obvious. See 2144.04(IV).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Fujioka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210363963 A1 (hereinafter Fujita).
Regarding claim 6, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
the metal layer is a first metal layer (Fig 8 shows this),
Murata, as modified above, may not explicitly disclose:
and the lightning protection system further comprises a second metal layer at the outer surface of the blade shell,
the second metal layer split into a first portion of the second metal layer and a second portion of the second metal layer with a second discontinuity between the first and second portions of the second metal layer,
wherein the first portion of the second metal layer is stacked on the first portion of the first metal layer to form electrical contact with the first portion of the first metal layer, and wherein the first electrically conductive pin extends through the first portion of the first metal layer and the first portion of the second metal layer;
and/or wherein the second portion of the second metal layer is stacked on the second portion of the first metal layer to form electrical contact with the second portion of the first metal layer, and wherein the second electrically conductive pin extends through the second portion of the first metal layer and the second portion of the second metal layer.
However, Fujita, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
An edge protector 30 (Fig 2), which is analogous to Murata’s design, and which in Fig. 7 and para 0063 is identified to have 3 layers stacked in direct contact with each other, each respective layer having the same configuration, in order to have more excellent erosion resistance performance than a single layer otherwise would (para 0063). Para 0068 identify that the layers have good electrical contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata as modified above to include Fujita’s teachings as described above, having more than one layer of Murata’s layers, in order to have more excellent erosion resistance performance than the single leading edge protector (para 0063). Each layer would be essentially a duplicate of the layer Murata shows, stacked onto the layer Murata shows. This configuration would result in the limitations identified directly above.
Regarding claim 7, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
a first unitary plate (annotated Fig 8a: “first disc”) extends through the first portion of the first metal layer and the first portion of the second metal layer (Fig 8 shows all this; wherein a broadest reasonable interpretation of “through” is “from one end or side of something to the other” per https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/through – see “first side” and “second side” in annotated Fig 8a),
and wherein a second unitary plate (annotated Fig 8a: “second disc”) extends through the second portion of the first metal layer and the second portion of the second metal layer (Fig 8 shows all this),
and wherein the first electrically conductive pin extends through the first unitary disc and the second electrically conductive pin extends through the second unitary disc (Fig 8 shows all this).
Murata may not explicitly disclose that the first unitary plate and the second unitary plate are discs.
However, courts have established that a change in size or shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is regarding “practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (see MPEP 2144.04) which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, any difference in shape between Murata’s “plate” 35 and the “disc” contemplated by claim 5 is held to be obvious. See 2144.04(IV).
PNG
media_image2.png
305
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8a
Regarding claim 8, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
the first portion and the second portion of the first metal layer are formed of the same material and/or have the same thickness and/or the first portion and the second portion of the second metal layer are formed of the same material and/or have the same thickness (Fig 8 shows that the first portions and the second portions have the same thickness).
Regarding claim 9, Murata, as modified above, further discloses:
the first metal layer and the second metal layer are formed of different materials.
Fujita discloses in para 0052 that the layers 30 may be made of “Metal materials such as aluminum, iron, copper, stainless steel, or the like, having excellent erosion resistance performance and electrical conductivity”. While he may not explicitly teach that each layer shown in Fig 7 may be made of a different one of these materials, it would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, recognizing that various materials may be suitable for creating the layers (Fujita para 0052), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try options (potential solutions) regarding the materials chosen for the layers, since there are known and finite possible options, in order to discover which option yields greatest success. There are 2 possible options: the layers are all made of the same material, the layers are not all made of the same material. One having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, identified in part by Fujita in para 0052, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to optimize the design of the leading edge protector 30 (Murata’s and Fujita’s entire disclosures are directed towards this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the first metal layer and the second metal layer formed of different materials in order to optimize the durability of the outer most layer and optimize the conductivity and cost of the inner layer.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Fujioka and Fujita as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of DE 102015115190 A1 (hereinafter Stricker).
Examiner's note: The examiner's submitted English translation of Stricker, submitted with the office action mailed on 8/8/2025, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding claim 16, Murata, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
the first portion of the first metal layer is formed of a different material compared to the second portion of the first metal layer and/or the first portion of the second metal layer is formed of a different material compared to the second portion of the second metal layer.
However, Stricker, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, provides a general teaching in para 4 of page 3 that various components of an arrangement on the blades may have different materials “chosen in particular according to the individual load situation” and identifies that mechanical abrasion load or mechanical wear in the area of the blade tip is greater than in a region close to the leaf root and thus materials of different hardness may be chosen accordingly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata to include Stricker’s teachings as described above, having different components of an arrangement on a blade be made of different materials having, for example, different hardness, in order to choose materials with the best balance of cost/weight against mechanical considerations such as, for example, mechanical loading or abrasion or wear, etc.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Fujioka and WO 2018157929 (hereinafter Fichtner) and Fujita and non-patent literature American Coatings Association (hereinafter ACA).
Examiner's note: The examiner's submitted English translation of Fichtner, submitted with the office action mailed on 8/8/2025, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding claim 18, Murata discloses:
A wind turbine blade (2; Fig 1), comprising:
a blade shell (18; Fig 2) having a pressure side (26; Fig 2) and a suction side (24; Fig 2);
and a lightning protection system (para 0010) associated with the blade shell, the lightning protection system comprising:
a first pin (Annotated Fig 8b), and a second pin (Annotated Fig 8b) adjacent to the first pin (wherein a broadest reasonable interpretation of “adjacent” is “nearby” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent, and these pins are adjacent because they are not the pins which are shown as furthest from one another in Fig 8);
and a metal layer (30A; Fig 8; para 0063: “The first region 30A is constructed of a metal board”) comprising a thin sheet-like conducting material (metal is a conducting material) (Fig 8 shows this) having a thickness at an outer surface of at least one of the pressure side and the suction side of the blade shell (Fig 8 shows this), the metal layer split into a first portion (a portion of 30c excluding any regions contacting or immediately surrounding any pins other than the first pin; Fig 8) and a second portion (a portion of 30b excluding any regions contacting or immediately surrounding any pins other than the second pin; Fig 8) with a discontinuity between the first and second portions (Fig 8 clearly shows a discontinuity at the interface between the first portion and the second portion);
wherein the first pin extends through the first portion of the metal layer and not through the second portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this);
and wherein the second pin extends through the second portion of the metal layer and not through the first portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this).
Murata may not explicitly disclose that the first pin and second pin are electrically conductive.
However, Fujioka, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A metal bolt 22 serving as an attachment as well as an electrical connection within a lightning protection system (Fig 4; para 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata to include Fujioka’s teachings as described above, having the first pin and second pin be electrically conductive, in order to serve as an attachment as well as an electrical connection within a lightning protection system (para 0073). Furthermore, it is noted that although Murata is silent that his bolt is made of an electrically conductive material, it is well known and conventional in the art of wind turbines to have fasteners in the blades made of electrically conductive material such as metal for the purposes of fastening components together with fasteners which are made of a typical material such as metal (see, for example, Fujioka). Murata is silent regarding this limitation because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, to have the first pin and second pin made of electrically conductive material such as metal for the purposes of fastening components together with fasteners which are made of a typical material such as metal.
Murata as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
the sheet-like conducting material having a thickness of less than 1 millimeter.
However, Fichtner, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A leading edge protector 7 (Fig 4, Fig 5) made of metal (page 3 para 3) which has a thickness of less than 1 millimeter (page 7 para 4) in order to “easily and permanently” protect the blade leading edge “against erosion” (page 3 para 4) with a configuration wherein “thickness of the individual components of the erosion protection arrangement can be chosen as a function of load” (e.g. page 3 last paragraph through page 4 para 1) while still serving lightning protection (page 5 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata to include Fichtner’s teachings as described above, having the sheet-like conducting material having a thickness of less than 1 millimeter, in order to “easily and permanently” protect the blade leading edge “against erosion” (page 3 para 4) with a configuration wherein “thickness of the individual components of the erosion protection arrangement can be chosen as a function of load” (e.g. page 3 last paragraph through page 4 para 1) while still serving lightning protection (page 5 para 2).
Murata as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
The metal layer being disposed beneath one or more outer layers of the blade shell.
However, Fujita, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
An edge protector 30 (Fig 2), which is analogous to Murata’s design, and which in Fig. 7 and para 0063 is identified to have 3 layers stacked in direct contact with each other, each respective layer having the same configuration, in order to have more excellent erosion resistance performance than a single layer otherwise would (para 0063). Para 0068 identify that the layers have good electrical contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata as modified above to include Fujita’s teachings as described above, having more than one layer of Murata’s layers, in order to have more excellent erosion resistance performance than the single leading edge protector (para 0063). Each layer would be essentially a duplicate of the layer Murata shows, stacked onto the layer Murata shows. This configuration would result in the limitation identified directly above.
Murata may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more outer layers include at least one of a fleece layer, a gelcoat layer, and a paint layer,
However, ACA, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches on page 2 that the exterior of a wind turbine blade may be painted in order to provide fast drying, good UV and weathering resistance, and protection against rain erosion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata as modified above to include ACA’s teachings as described above, having the wind turbine blade have an outer layer of paint in order to provide fast drying, good UV and weathering resistance, and protection against rain erosion (page 2).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Fujioka and Fujita and non-patent literature American Coatings Association (hereinafter ACA).
Regarding claim 19, Murata discloses:
A wind turbine blade (2; Fig 1), comprising:
a blade shell (18; Fig 2) having a pressure side (26; Fig 2) and a suction side (24; Fig 2);
and a lightning protection system (para 0010) associated with the blade shell,
the lightning protection system comprising:
a first pin (Annotated Fig 8b), and a second pin (Annotated Fig 8b) adjacent to the first pin (wherein a broadest reasonable interpretation of “adjacent” is “nearby” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent, and these pins are adjacent because they are not the pins which are shown as furthest from one another in Fig 8);
and a metal layer (30A; Fig 8; para 0063: “The first region 30A is constructed of a metal board”) at an outer surface (Fig 8 shows this) of at least one of the pressure side and the suction side of the blade shell (Fig 8 shows this),
the metal layer split into a first portion (a portion of 30c excluding any regions contacting or immediately surrounding any pins other than the first pin; Fig 8) and a second portion (a portion of 30b excluding any regions contacting or immediately surrounding any pins other than the second pin; Fig 8) with a discontinuity (Annotated Fig 8b) between the first and second portions (Fig 8 shows this);
wherein the first pin extends through the first portion of the metal layer and not through the second portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this);
and wherein the second pin extends through the second portion of the metal layer and not through the first portion of the metal layer (Fig 8 shows this).
Murata may not explicitly disclose that the first pin and second pin are electrically conductive.
However, Fujioka, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A metal bolt 22 serving as an attachment as well as an electrical connection within a lightning protection system (Fig 4; para 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata to include Fujioka’s teachings as described above, having the first pin and second pin be electrically conductive, in order to serve as an attachment as well as an electrical connection within a lightning protection system (para 0073). Furthermore, it is noted that although Murata is silent that his bolt is made of an electrically conductive material, it is well known and conventional in the art of wind turbines to have fasteners in the blades made of electrically conductive material such as metal for the purposes of fastening components together with fasteners which are made of a typical material such as metal (see, for example, Fujioka). Murata is silent regarding this limitation because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, to have the first pin and second pin made of electrically conductive such as metal for the purposes of fastening components together with fasteners which are made of a typical material such as metal.
Murata as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
The metal layer being disposed beneath one or more outer layers of the blade shell.
However, Fujita, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
An edge protector 30 (Fig 2), which is analogous to Murata’s design, and which in Fig. 7 and para 0063 is identified to have 3 layers stacked in direct contact with each other, each respective layer having the same configuration. Para 0068 identify that the layers have good electrical contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata as modified above to include Fujita’s teachings as described above, having more than one layer of Murata’s layers, in order to have more excellent erosion resistance performance than the single leading edge protector (para 0063). Each layer would be essentially a duplicate of the layer Murata shows, stacked onto the layer Murata shows. This configuration would result in the limitation identified directly above.
Murata may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more outer layers include at least one of a fleece layer, a gelcoat layer, and a paint layer,
However, ACA, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches on page 2 that the exterior of a wind turbine blade may be painted in order to provide fast drying, good UV and weathering resistance, and protection against rain erosion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata as modified above to include ACA’s teachings as described above, having the wind turbine blade have an outer layer of paint in order to provide fast drying, good UV and weathering resistance, and protection against rain erosion (page 2).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, Murata, as modified above, discloses:
the blade shell includes a leading edge (20; Fig 2) and a trailing edge (22; Fig 2) and wherein the metal layer does not cover a portion of the leading edge (Fig 2 shows that protector 30 does not cover the leading edge at a radially outer region of the blade).
Murata, as modified above, does not disclose:
the metal layer does not cover any portion of the leading edge.
Murata’s disclosure is entirely directed towards a leading edge protector (e.g. abstract) which is meant to protect the leading edge from erosion (e.g. para 0005), and which also has lightning protection incorporated (e.g. abstract).
At this time, the prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as described above such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would not be motivated to modify Murata’s edge protector to not cover any portion of the leading edge, such that it would read on Applicant’s claim, without improper hindsight from Applicant’s disclosure. The claim is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights