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 .
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 4, 6-7 and 15 is 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first foot" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second foot" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the channel walls" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the elongate body" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially similar” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes “substantially similar” will be interpreted as similar to any degree.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klaba et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0310020A1), hereinafter referred to as Klaba.
Regarding Claim 1, Klaba discloses a kit for a dry cooler assembly (shown in figure 33, being the components prior to assembly), the kit comprising:
a first frame and a second frame (1036, shown in figure 33 on either longitudinal end of the dry cooler assembly), each of the first and the second frames being configured to support a heat exchanger (1016) and having a body portion (being the walls that extend between the flange (1041) and the upper end portions (1051)) and a lower portion (1041), the body portion having an inner side (shown in figure 35, being the surface facing away from the center of the dry cooler assembly (1010));
a base component (1035, 1030); and
a roof component (1038, 1040); wherein
the first and the second frames, the base component, and the roof component are configured to be assembled to an assembled configuration (shown in figure 33, wherein the dry cooler assembly (1010) is assembled), such that:
the base component (1035, 1030) supports the first and the second frames in a spaced apart configuration (shown in figure 33), and the first and the second frames are located below the roof component (shown in figure 33).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1), hereinafter referred to as Moreno.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support Member)][AltContent: textbox (Upwardly Extending Arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Laterally Extending Arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base Component)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
688
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreno Figure 3
Regarding Claim 1, Moreno discloses a kit for a dry cooler assembly (shown in figure 3, being the components prior to assembly), the kit comprising:
a first frame and a second frame (shown in annotated figure 3 on either lateral side of the dry cooler assembly), each of the first and the second frames being configured to support a heat exchanger (13) and having a body portion (shown in annotated figure 3, comprising opposing “Upwardly Extending Arms” and a “Laterally Extending Arm”) and a lower portion (shown in annotated figure 3 being the portion of the annotated frame contacting a respective “Base Component” and the “Support Member”), the body portion having an inner side (shown in annotated figure 3, being the inner facing side of each respective annotated “Upwardly Extending Arm” that faces an opposing “Upwardly Extending Arm” along the “Base Component”);
a base component (shown in annotated figure 3, being situated on opposing sides of the adiabatic cooling system); and
a roof component (15-16); wherein
the first and the second frames, the base component, and the roof component are configured to be assembled to an assembled configuration (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the adiabatic cooling system is assembled), such that:
the base component (shown in annotated figure 3, being on opposing sides of the adiabatic cooling system) supports the first and the second frames in a spaced apart configuration (shown in annotated figure 3), and the first and the second frames are located below the roof component (shown in annotated figure 3).
Regarding limitations “dry cooler assembly” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to an intended use of the heat exchanger assembly, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 15, Moreno further discloses the roof component (15-16, shown in figure 2) is sized to be substantially similar to the first and the second vertical frames (shown in figure 2, wherein the longitudinal length of the “Upwardly Extending Arm” is similar to the width of the cover (15)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above and in further view of Klaba et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0310020A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Moreno further discloses the base component (shown in annotated figure 3, being situated on opposing sides of the adiabatic cooling system) comprises a first base member (shown in annotated figure 3, being situated on the front side) and a second base member (shown in annotated figure 3, being situated on the rear side), each of the first and second base members comprising:
an elongate body (shown in annotated figure 3), the elongate body being defined by walls (shown in annotated figure 3), the elongate body having functional surfaces configured to receive the respective lower portion of each of the first and the second frames (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the annotated “Upwardly Extending Arm” are contacting the annotated “Base Component”). Moreno fails to explicitly disclose an elongate body having a channel defined therein.
Klaba, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches a base member (1035) comprising: an elongate body having a channel defined therein (shown in figure 35), the elongate body being defined by walls (shown in figure 35).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting the elongate body base member of Moreno with an elongate body base member having a hollow channel; further the prior art to Klaba teaches an elongate body base member having a hollow channel is known for supporting heat exchanger components in a frame and utilized for attaching components to said elongate body. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Moreno with having an elongate body with a hollow channel for supporting heat exchanger components, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Klaba there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the elongate body of Moreno with a channel defined therein, as taught by Klaba, the motivation being to lessen the weight of the frame or to allow for bolted connections for a rapid assembly of the frame.
Regarding Claim 3, Moreno fails to disclose the lower portion comprises a first foot and a second foot, spaced apart from each other and extending away from the inner side of the body portion.
Klaba, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches the lower portion (1050) comprises a first foot and a second foot (shown in figure 35, wherein the flange (1041) comprises two feet that extend in opposite directions at the lower end portion (1050) and along the lower traversal member (1035)), spaced apart from each other (shown in figure 35) and extending away from an inner side of the body portion (shown in figure 35, wherein each respective leg of the flange (1041) extends away from a respective inner facing side of the upstanding member (1036), wherein the inner facing sides of adjacent upstanding members (1036) face one another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with the lower portion comprising a first foot and a second foot, spaced apart from each other and extending away from the inner side of the body portion, as taught by Klaba, the motivation being to make the frame removable with bolts or to extend the contact area between components thereby increasing the structural rigidity of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Moreno further discloses the elongate body further comprises an abutment member (bolts, shown in figure 35 attaching the flange (1041) to the frame)) configured such that at least one of the first foot and the second foot (shown in figure 35) abuts the abutment member in the assembled configuration (shown in figure 35).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above in view of Klaba et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0310020A1) as applied in Claims 2-3 and 7 above and in further view of De Almeida et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0321762A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Moreno fails to disclose at least one of the channel walls has a flared upper portion.
De Almeida teaches at least one of the channel walls (walls of the finger head (42)) has a flared upper portion (shown in figure 2). It is noted that Klaba teaches pipe clamps in figure 29, holding conduits (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with at least one of the channel walls has a flared upper portion as taught by De Almeida, the motivation being to include a rapid capturing device for a pipe or cable that negates damage of said pipe or cable due to movement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above in view of Klaba et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0310020A1) as applied in Claims 2-3 and 7 above and in further view of Shi et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0155236A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Moreno fails to disclose at least one of the channel walls has a flared upper portion.
Shi teaches at least one of the channel walls (walls of the finger head (42)) has a flared upper portion (shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with at least one of the channel walls has a flared upper portion as taught by Shi, the motivation being to include a rapid capturing device for a pipe or cable that negates damage of said pipe or cable due to movement.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above in view of Klaba et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0310020A1) as applied in Claims 2-3 and 7 above and in further view of Chehade et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0378695A1).
Regarding Claim 6, although Moreno further discloses the lower portion (shown in annotated figure 3 being the portion of the annotated frame contacting a respective “Base Component” and the “Support Member”) comprises a support member (shown in annotated figure 3) and the support member extending in a different direction to the first foot and the second foot (shown in annotated figure 3), Moreno fails to disclose channel walls further comprise a recessed portion for receiving the support member.
Chehade, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches a base member (20) having channel walls (shown in figure 9) further comprise a recessed portion (33) for receiving the support member (22, shown in figure 10).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a support member being connected to a top surface of a base member with a support member being connected to a recessed base member; further the prior art to Chehade teaches a base member having a recess for attaching a support member is known for constructing a heat exchanger frame and for providing support for the overall frame assembly. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Moreno with having a support member being connected to a recessed base member, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Chehade there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the base member of Moreno with recess for receiving a support member, as taught by Chehade, the motivation being to initially align the base member relative to the support member without fasteners.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above and in further view of Tarr et al. (Translation of TWM564065U).
Regarding Claim 8, Moreno fails to disclose a cable and piping management system, the cable and piping management system comprising:
an insert positionable between the first and second frames and shaped to create a tunnel between the respective inner sides of the first and second frames.
Tarr, also drawn to cooling unit, teaches a cable and piping management system, the cable and piping management system comprising:
an insert (12) positionable between the first and second frames (shown in figure 1) and shaped to create a tunnel between the respective inner sides of the first and second frames (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a cable and piping management system, the cable and piping management system comprising an insert positionable between the first and second frames and shaped to create a tunnel between the respective inner sides of the first and second frames, as taught by Tarr, the motivation being to mitigate degradation or failure of the pipes with a support that mitigates damage through vibration and to reduce labor by providing a predetermined piping location.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Khongo et al. (Translation of RU2794742C1), hereinafter referred to as Khongo.
Regarding Claim 8, Moreno fails to disclose a cable and piping management system, the cable and piping management system comprising:
an insert positionable between the first and second frames and shaped to create a tunnel between the respective inner sides of the first and second frames.
Khongo, teaches a cable and piping management system, the cable and piping management system comprising:
an insert (14) positionable between the first and second frames (shown in figure 7) and shaped to create a tunnel between the respective inner sides of the first and second frames (shown in figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a cable and piping management system, the cable and piping management system comprising an insert positionable between the first and second frames and shaped to create a tunnel between the respective inner sides of the first and second frames, as taught by Khongo, the motivation being to install necessary piping/cables prior to the finished assembly for reduced assembly time or to protect the piping/cables prior to assembly.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above in view of Khongo et al. (Translation of RU2794742C1) or Tarr et al. (Translation of TWM564065U) as applied in Claim 8 above, and in further view of Klaba et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0310020A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Moreno fails to disclose the cable and piping management system further comprises a loop wire arrangement connectable to at least one of the base component, the first frame and the second frame.
Klaba, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches the cable and piping management system further comprises a loop wire arrangement (65, shown in figure 6, wherein the loops are located on multiple levels on either opposing lateral sides of the frame) connectable to at least one of the first frame and the second frame (“Horizontal support members 65 extend transversally to the lower and upper longitudinal members 42, 44 and are secured to a respective pair of the corner vertical members 56. The horizontal support members 65 are provided with clamps 55 for securing the piping 15 to the main frame 40”, ¶73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a cable and piping management system further comprises a loop wire arrangement connectable to at least one of the base component, the first frame and the second frame, as taught by Klaba, the motivation being to mitigate degradation or failure of the pipes with a support that mitigates damage through vibration, to reduce labor by providing a predetermined piping location or to support piping traveling on multiple planes within the assembly.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above and in further view of Bauduin et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0062817A1), hereinafter referred to as Bauduin.
Regarding Claim 10, although Moreno discloses the base component and the roof component, the first and the second frames (see rejection of Claim 1) and the first and the second frames, the base component and the roof component forming one set of the dry cooler assembly (see rejection of Claim 1, wherein the aforementioned components form a set or one assembly), Moreno fails to disclose the kit further comprises a shipping container housing the first and the second frames, the base component and the roof component.
Bauduin, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches a shipping container housing the first and the second frames (“This configuration reduces the footprint, or amount of ground space occupied by the dry cooler 10 and facilitates its transport, notably in shipping containers, or heavy-duty trailers, and the like”, ¶56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a shipping container housing the first and the second frames, the base component and the roof component, as taught by Bauduin, the motivation being that shipping containers are known for having adequate space for transferring large cooling devices, while protecting said devices from damage.
Regarding Claim 11, Moreno fails to disclose within the shipping container, the roof component is disposed in between the first and the second frames.
Bauduin, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches within the shipping container (“This configuration reduces the footprint, or amount of ground space occupied by the dry cooler 10 and facilitates its transport, notably in shipping containers, or heavy-duty trailers, and the like”, ¶56), the roof component is disposed in between (shown in figures 6 and 14, wherein the roof/fan assemblies are removable) the first and the second frames (see intended use analysis below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a shipping container housing the first and the second frames and the removable roof, as taught by Bauduin, the motivation being to reduce the overall footprint of the cooling assembly.
Regarding limitations “within the shipping container, the roof component is disposed in between the first and the second frames” recited in Claim 11, which are directed to a positioning of components, it is noted that neither the manner of operating or shipping a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. It is noted that the cooling assembly as taught by Bauduin is capable of being shipped within a container and being places between a first and second frame).
Regarding Claim 12, Moreno fails to disclose the roof component is configured to be removably coupled to at least one of the first and the second frames when positioned in the shipping container housing.
Bauduin, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches the roof component (16, 20) is configured to be removably coupled to at least one of the first and the second frames (shown in figures 6 and 14) when positioned in the shipping container housing (“This configuration reduces the footprint, or amount of ground space occupied by the dry cooler 10 and facilitates its transport, notably in shipping containers, or heavy-duty trailers, and the like”, ¶56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a shipping container housing the first and the second frames and the removable roof, as taught by Bauduin, the motivation being to reduce the overall footprint of the cooling assembly.
Regarding limitations “the roof component is configured to be removably coupled to at least one of the first and the second frames when positioned in the shipping container housing” recited in Claim 12, which are directed to a positioning of components, it is noted that neither the manner of operating or shipping a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. It is noted that the cooling assembly as taught by Bauduin is capable of being shipped within a container and the roof is removable.
Regarding Claim 13, Moreno fails to disclose the roof component comprises at least one opening configured to align with at least one opening on at least one of the first and the second frame; and, the roof component being removably coupled to at least one of the first and the second frame via insertion of at least one fastener extending through the aligned openings of the roof component and at least one of the first and the second frame.
Bauduin, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches the roof component (16) comprises at least one opening configured to align with at least one opening on at least one of the first and the second frame (1016, “the flat plate portion 1016 is provided with openings for receiving corresponding fasteners therein to affix the fan assembly 16 to the flat plate portion 1016”, ¶57); and, the roof component being removably coupled to at least one of the first and the second frame via insertion of at least one fastener extending through the aligned openings of the roof component and at least one of the first and the second frame (se ¶57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with the roof component comprises at least one opening configured to align with at least one opening on at least one of the first and the second frame; and, the roof component being removably coupled to at least one of the first and the second frame via insertion of at least one fastener extending through the aligned openings of the roof component and at least one of the first and the second frame, as taught by Bauduin, the motivation being to allow for maintenance or replacement of cooling unit components with interchangeable parts, thereby minimizing down time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (WO2017/082714A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 15 above in view of Bauduin et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0062817A1) as applied in Claims 10-13 above and in further view of Yates et al. (US PG Pub. 2008/0060790A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Moreno fails to disclose the shipping container houses a plurality of the sets of the dry cooler assembly.
Yates, also drawn to a cooler having a frame, teaches a shipping container houses a plurality of the sets of the dry cooler assembly (“A plurality of heat exchanger/cooling fan towers 28 are provided within the shipping container”, ¶41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Moreno with a shipping container housing a plurality of the sets of the dry cooler assembly, as taught by Yates, the motivation being to reduce the number of shipments for multiple units thereby minimizing expended resources.
Moreno discloses the claimed invention except for a shipping container housing a plurality of the sets of the dry cooler assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of the sets, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763