DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL Office action (“Action”) in reply to the response with claim amendments filed Oct. 6, 2025 (“Oct. Resp.”) in this reissue application filed June 25, 2024 from U.S. Patent No. 11,390,387 (“’387 patent), which issued from U.S. patent application no. 16/532,725 (“’725 application).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The ‘387 patent has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, and is thus being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, therefore, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.75, and 3.73 are to the current provisions enacted under the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (“AIA ”). See Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 157, pg. 48820, August 16, 2012.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Previously Presented Objections to the Specification and Claims
The previously presented objections to the specification and claims are withdrawn in light of the corresponding amendments submitted in the Oct. Resp.
Previously Presented Objections to the Reissue Oath/Declaration
The previously presented objection to the oath/declaration is maintained and updated based on the reissue oath/declaration filed with the Oct. Resp. See Oct. Resp. 6.
Previously Presented 35 U.S.C. § 251 Claim Rejections
The previously presented section 251 claim rejections are maintained updated below based on the reissue oath/declaration filed with the Oct. Resp. See Oct. Resp. 6.
Previously Presented 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Claim Interpretation
The previously presented section 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn based on the claim amendments submitted in the Oct. Resp. See Oct. Resp. 6.
Previously Presented 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (b) Claim Rejections based on 112(f) Interpretation
The previously presented section 112(a) and (b) claim rejections based on the section 112(f) claim interpretation are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments submitted in the Oct. Resp. See Oct. Resp. 6.
Previously Presented 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Claim Rejections
The previously presented section 112(b) claim rejections based on various indefinite claim terms are maintained because the claims were not amended to resolve the noted issues. Cf. Oct. Resp. 6.
Previously Presented 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 Claim Rejections
Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the sections 102 and 103 claim rejections have been considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Patent Owner argues:
(1) while Gambino “refers to the fact that heating elements can be provided on propellers, a point which is not disputed … the specific embodiments of Gambino make no reference to a propeller, but rather only to wings … Gambino therefore fails to directly and unambiguously disclose the use of its method on a propeller,” as claimed, (Oct. Resp. 7); and
(2) “Gambino only teaches to monitor change (when all ice has been fully melted) … [whereas] when the bond between the propeller and the ice is weakened to the extent where it may be shed by the G-forces of the propeller, the inventors in this case have realized that this point may be identified by a simple threshold measurement (i.e. looking for a point change in the temperature graph in Figure 2),” (Oct. Resp. 8-9).
Regarding the first argument, paragraph 6 of Gambino when read with paragraph 5 clearly indicates that including a “heated resistive element” on a propeller is a known technique “available for performing de-icing.” Additionally, paragraph 102 of Gambino expressly states, “[e]xemplary embodiments of the present invention may be applied to conceptual aircraft level integration, for example, a UAV may be considered with wing span of about 15 m each wing … [and i]ce detection and minimization arrays may be integrated on other critical surfaces, particularly targeting areas where icing is a known problem such as, cowlings, antennas and propellers.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, Gambino fully teaches that the “ice detection and minimization arrays” as described on the leading edges of a wing may also be integrated on propellers. As a result, the embodiments in Gambino are also applicable to propellers, and the first argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the second argument, initially, Patent Owner’s argument seems to suggest that the term “shed” must mean the G-forces of the propeller as it rotates, along with some type of heating element, are what causes the ice to be removed from the blade. However, neither the claims nor the specification require this interpretation not only because the claim is not so specific and does not recite “g-force” or any force at all, but also because the term “shed” is not expressly defined in the specification to mean what Patent Owner argues. Moreover, since Gambino teaches heating a propeller (i.e., the blades) to remove ice, it would be an inherent property of melting ice to be removed from a propeller in motion as a result of rotational forces (i.e., “g-forces”). Thus, while Gambino may not expressly state that ice may be flung from a heated propeller blade while it is in use, this would be an inherent characteristic.
Lastly, the limitation at issue recites, “wherein said detected change in rate of change of temperature increase indicates that said ice has been shed from said external surface of said blade, if the change in the rate of change of the sensed temperature exceeds a threshold.” Paragraph 71 of Gambino states, “[m]ethod 2 detects ice by looking for this small slope that accompanies ice melt. A time delay is selected that is long enough where melting will have initiated. If the derivative is larger than some threshold (0.4.degree. C./s for this example) then no ice may be determined to be present. If it is lower, then ice may be determined to [be] present.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, just like the claim, Gambino teaches that when a “change in the rate of change of temperature” (e.g., the change in a derivative) exceeds a threshold, then the system determines ice is not present, whether it be solely from melting, rotational forces, or a combination of both. As a result, the second argument is not persuasive.
For at least the reasons above, Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to Gambino and the sections 102 and 103 claim rejections are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Claims in a reissue application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP §§ 1445, 2111.01. As noted in the claim amendments submitted with the Oct. Resp., the phrase “when a derivative of the sensed temperature exceeds a threshold” has been changed to “if the change in the rate of change of the sensed temperature exceeds a threshold,” where the italicized text represents the change. A “derivative” is understood to be the instantaneous rate of change of a function, or more simply put, the slope of the function at a given point in time. The new claim limitation is understood to be broadening this definition from an instantaneous rate of change to a change in the rate of change. In other words, the new limitation is understood to mean the difference/comparison or “change” in slope of two points along a function, such as, the “rate of change of the sensed temperature.” So, when this difference or change exceeds a threshold, then the condition of the limitation noted above is met, which also encompasses changes in the “derivative” itself, for example, as shown in Fig. 5 of Gambino.
Objections – Reissue Declarations
The reissue declarations filed with this application are defective for the following reasons:
The declarations fail to identify at least one proper error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. The current reissue is understood to be a broadening reissue because the original language of “derivative” (or instantaneous rate of change at a point in time) is being changed to “the change in the rate of change,” which is considered broader. In a broadening reissue, the error statement must identify an original claim that contains the error and the original claim “word, phrase, or expression” that “renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” See MPEP § 1414, subsection II.
At the bottom of page 2, there is a place to indicate additional joint inventors and the number of supplemental sheets attached. However, while there are supplemental sheets attached, this “box” has not been checked nor is there a number given of additional attached sheets.
For these reasons, the reissue declaration filed with the Oct. Resp. is objected to.
To remedy the above issues, a single newly executed oath/declaration (e.g., form PTO/AIA /05) should be filed specifying at least one correctable error and the form should list the first inventor, check the box on the bottom of page 2, list the number of attached supplemental sheets, and use form PTO/AIA /10 for the additional inventors1, however many sheets that may be.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon defective reissue declarations. See also 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defects in each of the declarations is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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.
Claims 2 and 9-13 – Indefinite Limitations
Claims 2 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 2, around line 1, the limitation “said blades” lacks proper antecedent basis because there is only previously-recited one blade.
Claim 2, around line 3, the limitation “said step of providing heat” lacks proper antecedent basis because there is only previously-recited “applying,” “sensing,” “calculating,” and “detecting” steps.
Claim 2, around lines 4-5 recite, “wherein upon the detection that said ice has been shed from said first group of blades” lacks proper antecedent basis because there is never previously-recited a detection for “the first group of blades” of whether or not ice has been shed.
Claim 2, in the last line, the limitation “a second group of blades” should be changed to (with proper amendment markings shown for convenience) “[a] the second group of blades” to avoid confusion with the already-recited “second group of blades.”
Claim 9 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 9, around line 1, “the limitation “said blades” lacks proper antecedent basis because there is only previously-recited one blade.
Claim 9, around lines 4-5 recite, “wherein upon the detection that said ice has been shed from said first group of blades” lacks proper antecedent basis because there is never previously-recited a detection for “the first group of blades” of whether or not ice has been shed.
Claim 9, around lines 5-7, the limitations “the heater of the first group of blades” and “the heater of the second group of blades” lack proper antecedent basis because there is never previously-recited a “heater” for either of the “first group of blades” or “second group of blades,” there is only previously recited a “heater” for “the blade of the aircraft propeller.”
Claim 10, the limitation “the rotary hub of said propeller” lacks a proper antecedent basis and should be changed to “[the] a rotary hub of said propeller.”
Claim 11 recites “a closed loop controller with component skin temperature feedback.” The term “component skin” is unclear because there is no evidence in the filings it is a recognized term of art nor does the specification of the ‘387 patent define the term explicitly, implicitly, or even in usage. As a result, claim 11 is unclear because the term “component skin” is not understood.
Claim 12 recites “the component” in two places. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because there is never previously-recited “a component” in the claim or parent claim 7.
Claim 13 recites “the component” in two places. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because there is never previously-recited “a component” in the claim or parent claim 7.
Claims 12 and 13 each recite “said means for sensing,” which lacks proper antecedent basis because in claim 7, from which claims 12 and 13 depend, “means for sensing” has been changed to “a sensor that senses.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gambino2 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gambino in view of Froman3, both of which are in the same field as detecting ice on and de-icing parts of aircraft as the claimed invention.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Gambino teaches:
A method of detecting that ice has been shed from an external surface of a blade of an aircraft propeller (Gambino, Figs. 1, 9 show a system and method of detecting ice on and deicing parts of an aircraft, and while the figures show the system in a wing, ¶¶5, 6, 102 explain that the “heated resistive elements may also be attached to … propellers”), the method comprising:
applying power to a heater to provide heat to said external surface of the blade of the aircraft propeller (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S901, ¶¶51, 95, a heating element provides heat to the external surface of the blade (see e.g., Fig. 1) so as to melt ice, which can be applied to the blade of a propeller, see e.g. id. ¶102);
sensing the temperature of the blade of the aircraft propeller (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S906, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, the sensed temperature is based on measure resistances and the temperature coefficient of the heater material, which is in the blade, and thus, the temperature of the blade is sensed);
calculating a rate of change of temperature increase of the external surface of the blade of the aircraft propeller over time (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S906, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, the change in temperature is calculated); and
detecting a change in said rate of change of temperature increase over time (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S907, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95-96; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, the change in temperature is compared, and thus, detected),
wherein said detected change in rate of change of temperature increase indicates that said ice has been shed from said external surface of said blade, if the change in the rate of change of the sensed temperature exceeds a threshold (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S906-S907, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95-96; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, if the heating rate is “high” (i.e., an increase), no ice is present).
It is noted that should the limitation “sensing the temperature of the blade” be interpreted as a direct temperature measurement of the blade, then Gambino does not teach this limitation. The temperature of the blade in Gambino is sensed from the heating element, which while in the blade, may not be a direct measurement of the blade’s temperature. Even so, Froman teaches a sensor in a similar system of detecting ice buildup on surfaces of wings of an aircraft and subsequently de-icing using a heating element, such that the sensor is used to determine the temperature of the blade in which the heater is placed and then can also detect the presence or absence of ice. See Froman ¶¶18, Figs. 1, 2B, the temperature sensor 224 measures the blade’s temperature and adjusts heating accordingly; see also id. ¶38, Fig. 6, step 610. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense the temperature of the element containing the heating element so as to effectively determine when ice is present (or absent) on a part of an aircraft and adjust heating as necessary, thereby, preventing damage to the system due to overheating or rapid temperature changes but also effectively removing ice. See id. ¶2.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites and Gambino teaches the “method of claim 1, further comprising: reducing or stopping the power applied to said heater after ice has been shed.” Gambino ¶¶67-69, where the heater would necessarily be turned off when no ice is detected to avoid overheating and damaging the blade.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites and Gambino teaches:
A system for detecting that ice has been shed from an external surface of a blade of an aircraft propeller (Gambino, Figs. 1, 9 show a system and method of detecting ice on and deicing parts of an aircraft, and while the figures show the system in a wing, ¶¶5, 6, 102 explain that the “heated resistive elements may also be attached to … propellers”), the system comprising:
a heater configured to receive power to provide heat to said external surface of the blade of the aircraft propeller (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S901, ¶¶51, 95, a heating element provides heat to the external surface of the blade (see e.g., Fig. 1) so as to melt ice, which can be applied to the blade of a propeller, see e.g. id. ¶102);
a sensor that senses a temperature of the blade of the aircraft propeller (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S906, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95, the temperature sensor may be at least a thermocouple; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, the sensed temperature is based on measure resistances and the temperature coefficient of the heater material, which is in the blade, and thus, the temperature of the blade is sensed); and
a controller configured to calculate a rate of change of temperature increase over time (Gambino Fig. 12, ¶¶104, 112, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) 125 may be used to implement the functions and methods describes, ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S906, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, the change in temperature is calculated)[;]
wherein said controller is further configured to detect a change in said rate of change of temperature increase over time (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S907, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95-96; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, the change in temperature is compared, and thus, detected), and
wherein said detected change in rate of change of the sensed temperature increase indicates that said ice has been shed from said external surface of said blade when the change in the rate of change of the sensed temperature exceeds a threshold (Gambino ¶¶67-69; see also id. Fig. 9, S906-S907, ¶¶52, 58-59, 67, 95-96; see also id. Fig. 5, ¶¶70-73, if the heating rate is “high” (i.e., an increase), no ice is present).
It is noted that should the limitation “sensing the temperature of the blade” be interpreted as a direct temperature measurement of the blade, then Gambino does not teach this limitation. The temperature of the blade in Gambino is sensed from the heating element, which while in the blade, may not be a direct measurement of the blade’s temperature. Even so, Froman teaches a sensor in a similar system of detecting ice buildup on surfaces of wings of an aircraft and subsequently de-icing using a heating element, such that the sensor is used to determine the temperature of the blade in which the heater is placed and then can also detect the presence or absence of ice. See Froman ¶¶18, Figs. 1, 2B, the temperature sensor 224 measures the blade’s temperature and adjusts heating accordingly; see also id. ¶38, Fig. 6, step 610. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense the temperature of the element containing the heating element so as to effectively determine when ice is present (or absent) on a part of an aircraft and adjust heating as necessary, thereby, preventing damage to the system due to overheating or rapid temperature changes but also effectively removing ice. See id. ¶2.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites and Gambino teaches the “system of claim 7, wherein upon detection that said ice has been shed from said external surface, the controller is further configured to reduce or stop the power applied to said heater.” Gambino ¶¶67-69, where the heater would necessarily be turned off when no ice is detected to avoid overheating and damaging the blade.
Claims 5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambino in view of Froman, both of which are in the same field as detecting ice on and de-icing parts of aircraft as the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 11
Claim 5 recites the “method of claim 1, further comprising providing the sensed temperature as feedback to a closed loop controller.” Claim 11 recites the “system of claim 7, wherein said controller is a closed loop controller with component skin temperature feedback.” While Gambino does not teach the additional limitations of claims 5 and 11, Froman remedies this and teaches, as shown in Fig. 3, a closed loop control system in which the surface (i.e., “component skin”) of the blade is sensed using surface temperature sensor 324, which feeds back the information to controller 302 for adjustment of the heater. Froman ¶¶15, 21, 24, Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feedback of a sensed temperature, as in Froman, with the system of Gambino “to determine when a heated surface reaches a certain target temperature,” and thus, adjust heating as appropriate to avoid damage, among other things, to the blade. See Froman ¶15.
Claims 12 and 13
Claim 12 recites the “system of claim 7, wherein said means for sensing the temperature of the component is disposed on an external surface of the component.” Claim 13 recites the “system of claim 7, wherein said means for sensing the temperature of the component is disposed on an internal surface of the component.” As explained above in the section 112(b) rejections, a “component” is not clear in the claims. Thus, any component that is heated would teach the language of the claims. As a result, while Gambino does not teach the limitations of claims 12 and 13, Froman remedies this and teaches that a “means for sensing” may be both external and internal, such as being external to the heating element but also being internal to the “heated component, such as the blade. See Froman ¶15, “the surface of each heated component may be embedded with a temperature sensor to provide feedback of the surface temperature to anti-ice system 120.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a temperature sensor “to determine when a heated surface reaches a certain target temperature,” and thus, adjust heating as appropriate to avoid damage, among other things, to the blade. See Froman ¶15.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambino in view of Froman, and in further view of Povroznik4, all of which are in the same field as detecting ice on and de-icing parts of aircraft as the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 9
Claim 2 recites the “method of claim 1, wherein said aircraft propeller comprises a plurality of said blades and wherein said method further comprises: allocating said blades into at least a first group and a second group of blades; wherein said step of providing heat is only performed on said first group of blades whilst no heat is provided to said second group of blades; and wherein upon the detection that said ice has been shed from said first group of blades, reducing or stopping the power to the heater of the first group of blades whilst applying power to the heater of a second group of blades.”
Claim 9 recites, similar to claim 2, the “system of claim 7, wherein said aircraft propeller comprises a plurality of said blades; wherein said blades are allocated into at least a first group and a second group of blades; wherein said controller is configured to provide heat only to said first group of blades whilst not applying any heat to said second group of blades; and wherein upon the detection that said ice has been shed from said first group of blades, said controller is configured to reduce or stop the power to the heating means of the first group of blades whilst applying power to the heating means of the second group of blades.”
While neither Gambino nor Froman teach these additionally recited limitations, Povroznik remedies this and teaches that rotary blades may be separated and grouped such that one group (or blade) is heated one at a time and when the ice has been detected to be removed from a blade, another blade of another group can be heated. See Povroznik ¶¶25, 44-45, Fig. 5, steps 330, 380. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group the rotary blades of the combination of Gambino and Froman, and heat them separately, as in Povroznik, so as to accurately measure heating in particular blades and reduce or shutoff power to the corresponding heating elements in the event the blade temperature might damage the blade. See Povroznik ¶¶5, 30, 39.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the “system of claim 7, wherein said controller is provided on the rotary hub of said propeller.” Neither Gambino nor Froman teach this limitation, however, Povroznik teaches that a controller for controlling the heating elements may be connected “within the rotor head of the rotor system,” or in other words, in the rotary hub of the propeller.” See Povroznik ¶¶38, 41, Fig. 4, processor 206, which is part of RIPS 200. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller within the rotary hub of the propeller to, among other reasons, to allow the entire temperature sensing “kit” to be installed on existing aircraft. See id. ¶41.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Amendments made during examination of a reissue application are different than amendments made during examination of a standard utility application. See 37 CFR § 1.173; see also MPEP § 1453.
A few notable, but by no means the only, differences are:
Throughout examination of a reissue application, amendments are always with respect to the original patent regardless of any amendments that have already been filed. See 37 CFR § 1.173(g).
Deleted limitations must be shown in single brackets while newly added limitations and the entirety of newly added claims are underlined, including number and status identifier. See 37 CFR § 1.173(d).
Changes to the specification must mention where in the issued patent (i.e., column and lines numbers) the changes are to be made and the entirety of an amended paragraph must be presented, unless canceling the paragraph. See 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(1)(i); see also MPEP § 1453, subsection V.A., Example (1).
Status identifiers, after the first amendment, must indicate how many times an original patent claim has been amended during examination of the reissue application (e.g., “Twice Amended”, etc.). See 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(2).
When claims are amended, “there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” 37 CFR § 1.173(c).
Applicant Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,390,387 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees: /WILLIAM E DONDERO/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 For clarity and consistency, e.g., in error statements, it is best to not use a separate PTO/AIA /05 form for each inventor.
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0191084, to Gambino et al. (“Gambino”).
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0327100, to Froman.
4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0174349, to Povroznik, III et al. (“Povroznik”).