DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 5/11/2026. Currently, claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 21 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Drawings
Applicant’s response to the drawing objections in the previous Office action filed on 2/17/2026 (pages 2-3) is noted. Further to applicant’s response pointing to the specification as filed, paragraph [0066], the protrusions and indentations as claimed were treated as being shown, for example in applicant’s Figs. 7-8 as protrusions (188a, 188b) and indentations (187a, 187b) as described in applicant’s specification as filed, paragraph [0060].
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, 3-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl, Sr. et al. (US 20070204540) (‘Stahl’) in view of AT 005915 U1 (as provided by applicant) (‘AT ‘915’).
Claim 1, Stahl teaches a system for insulating a curtain wall structure connected to a building structure, the curtain wall structure having framing defined by at least first and second vertically disposed and parallel mullions separated by a mullion distance (note that the claim is drawn to a system for insulating, and does not positively recite a curtain wall structure or a building structure, thus the curtain wall structure including framing defined by first and second mullions, and the building structure are not required), the system comprising:
a curtain wall insulation panel (20; Figs. 2 and 6) having:
a first face (first face of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a second face opposite the first face (second face of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a material thickness defined between the first face and the second face (material thickness between the first and second faces of 20; Fig. 6),
a first end (first end of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a second end opposite the first end (second end of 20; Figs. 2 and 6), and
a first material length defined between the first end and the second end (length between the first and second ends of 20; Figs. 2 and 6); and
wherein the panel is configured to be disposed within the framing 17.
Although Stahl teaches the panel being spandrel insulation [0033], Stahl does not teach the panel comprising first and second panels, the first end of the first panel having a longitudinally extending indentation, and the first end of the second panel having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within the longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel, and the system having a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307.
However, AT ‘915 teaches fire protection insulating panels (“fire protection panels 1”; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant) comprising the same material as applicant’s first and second panels (mineral wool; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant), the panels each comprising a longitudinally extending protrusion 5 that gets disposed within a longitudinally extending recess 4 of an adjacent panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the spandrel insulation comprising a first panel and a second panel, wherein the first panel and the second panel are configured to be disposed within the framing such that a longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect two panels together to span a distance between framing, when the distance is longer than one panel, and/or to make it easier to handle, transport and install shorter panels, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Stahl further teaches the system preventing migration of flame [0013]. Note that ASTM E2307 was treated as a known standard. As such, the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, using known methods with no change in their respective functions to obtain a flame rating of at least 2 hours to meet the claimed standard. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Stahl’s system to have a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known system to meet a known standard.
Claims 3-6, Stahl and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Stahl further teaches [claim 4] wherein the installed length of the spandrel panel is approximately (note that “approximately” as recited throughout the claims was treated in accordance with the specification and under the plain meaning to mean about or close to, including not necessarily being exact) equal to the mullion distance (Stahl distance between 17 left and 17 right, as viewed in Fig. 2). Stahl does not teach [claim 3] wherein a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, [claim 5] wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and [claim 6] wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). However, AT ‘915 further teaches [claim 3] a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed/connected length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel (AT ‘915 the sum of the first and second material lengths is greater than an installed/connected length because the indentation of the first panel receives the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel, see Fig. 2). It is understood that the panels of AT ‘915 are combined to form a length that is greater than one panel (AT ‘915 machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that combining such panels would result in an installed/connected length being approximately equal to, or could be less than a mullion distance, depending on the length of the panels, and the length of the mullion distance, and could be used with mullions spaced at least about (note that “about” as recited throughout the claims was treated as a relative term of degree in light of applicant’s specification and under the plain meaning to mean close to) 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try sizing the panels and the mullion distance, such that a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is approximately equal to the mullion distance, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm), with the reasonable expectation of success of installing the panels between the mullions to provide insulation and fire protection, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.).
Claims 7-13, Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Stahl does not teach [claim 7] wherein at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), [claim 8] wherein a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, [claim 9] wherein a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, [claim 10] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 11] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 12] wherein a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and [claim 13] wherein a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining desired insulation properties and/or fire protective properties of spandrel insulation that has a strong connection between panels suitable to maintain the connection between panels, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a depth of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a depth of the protrusion of the second panel (AT ‘915 Figs. 2-3).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second end of the first panel comprises a second longitudinally extending protrusion (AT ‘915 5; Fig. 3) and the second end of the second panel comprises a second longitudinally extending indentation (AT ‘915 4; Fig. 3).
Claim 16, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is symmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; symmetrical about a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is asymmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; asymmetrical about a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel comprises mineral wool (Stahl [0044]; AT ‘915 machine translation).
Claim 20, Stahl and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although Stahl teaches the panel being the same material as applicant’s material (mineral wool [0044]), Stahl does not teach the panel having a density of at least about 96 kg/m3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the first or second panel to have a density of at least about 96 kg/m3, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material with a known density value to provide superior performance in compressive strength, improved sound absorption, and better fire resistance, compared to mineral wool with lower densities, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shriver (US 8671645) in view of AT 005915 U1 (as provided by applicant) (‘AT ‘915’).
Claim 1, Shriver teaches a system for insulating a curtain wall structure connected to a building structure, the curtain wall structure having framing defined by at least first and second vertically disposed and parallel mullions separated by a mullion distance (note that the claim is drawn to a system for insulating, and does not positively recite a curtain wall structure or a building structure, thus the curtain wall structure including framing defined by first and second mullions, and the building structure are not required), the system comprising:
a curtain wall insulation panel (22; Figs. 1-2) having:
a first face (first face of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a second face opposite the first face (second face of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a material thickness defined between the first face and the second face (material thickness between the first and second faces of 22; Fig. 2),
a first end (first end of 22; Fig. 2),
a second end opposite the first end (second end of 22; Fig. 2), and
a first material length defined between the first end and the second end (length between the first and second ends of 22; Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the panel is configured to be disposed within the framing (16, 18).
Although Shriver teaches the panel being spandrel insulation (col. 4, lines 18-20), Shriver does not teach the panel comprising first and second panels, the first end of the first panel having a longitudinally extending indentation, and the first end of the second panel having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within the longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel, and the system having a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307.
However, AT ‘915 teaches fire protection insulating panels (“fire protection panels 1”; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant) comprising the same material as applicant’s first and second panels (mineral wool; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant), the panels each comprising a longitudinally extending protrusion 5 that gets disposed within a longitudinally extending recess 4 of an adjacent panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the spandrel insulation comprising a first panel and a second panel, wherein the first panel and the second panel are configured to be disposed within the framing such that a longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect two panels together to span a distance between framing, when the distance is longer than one panel, and/or to make it easier to handle, transport and install shorter panels, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Shriver further teaches the system preventing migration of flame (col. 4, lines 25-35). Note that ASTM E2307 was treated as a known standard. As such, the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, using known methods with no change in their respective functions to obtain a flame rating of at least 2 hours to meet the claimed standard. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shriver’s system to have a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known system to meet a known standard.
Claims 3-6, Shriver and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Shriver further teaches [claim 4] wherein the installed length of the spandrel panel is approximately (note that “approximately” as recited throughout the claims was treated in accordance with the specification and under the plain meaning to mean about or close to, including not necessarily being exact) equal to the mullion distance (Shriver distance between 16 left and 16 right, as viewed in Fig. 2). Shriver does not teach [claim 3] wherein a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, [claim 5] wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and [claim 6] wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). However, AT ‘915 further teaches [claim 3] a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed/connected length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel (AT ‘915 the sum of the first and second material lengths is greater than an installed/connected length because the indentation of the first panel receives the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel, see Fig. 2). It is understood that the panels of AT ‘915 are combined to form a length that is greater than one panel (AT ‘915 machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that combining such panels would result in an installed/connected length being approximately equal to, or could be less than a mullion distance, depending on the length of the panels, and the length of the mullion distance, and could be used with mullions spaced at least about (note that “about” as recited throughout the claims was treated as a relative term of degree in light of applicant’s specification and under the plain meaning to mean close to) 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try sizing the panels and the mullion distance, such that a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is approximately equal to the mullion distance, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm), with the reasonable expectation of success of installing the panels between the mullions to provide insulation and fire protection, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.).
Claims 7-13, Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Shriver does not teach [claim 7] wherein at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), [claim 8] wherein a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, [claim 9] wherein a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, [claim 10] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 11] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 12] wherein a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and [claim 13] wherein a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining desired insulation properties and/or fire protective properties of spandrel insulation that has a strong connection between panels suitable to maintain the connection between panels, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a depth of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a depth of the protrusion of the second panel (AT ‘915 Figs. 2-3).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second end of the first panel comprises a second longitudinally extending protrusion (AT ‘915 5; Fig. 3) and the second end of the second panel comprises a second longitudinally extending indentation (AT ‘915 4; Fig. 3).
Claim 16, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is symmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; symmetrical about a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is asymmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; asymmetrical about a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 18, Shriver further teaches wherein the framing is further defined by at least first and second horizontally disposed and parallel transoms 18 separated by a transom distance (col. 4, lines 10-18). Shriver does not teach wherein the transom distance is less than or equal to about 24 inches (about 610 mm). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that the transom distance is less than or equal to about 24 inches (about 610 mm), with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a spacing sufficient to install insulation over a slab, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel comprises mineral wool (Shriver col. 4, lines 35-38; AT ‘915 machine translation).
Claim 20, Shriver and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although Shriver teaches the panel being the same material as applicant’s material (mineral wool col. 4, lines 35-38), Shriver does not teach the panel having a density of at least about 96 kg/m3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the first or second panel to have a density of at least about 96 kg/m3, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material with a known density value to provide superior performance in compressive strength, improved sound absorption, and better fire resistance, compared to mineral wool with lower densities, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claim(s) 1, 3-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl, Sr. et al. (US 20070204540) (‘Stahl’) in view of AT 005915 U1 (as provided by applicant) (‘AT ‘915’).
Re claim 1, applicant argues that the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 allegedly does not teach all the limitations of amended claim 1 (previously presented claim 2) because the combination allegedly does not disclose or suggest the system having a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307. Applicant argues that Stahl teaches fire resistance through a different structural approach than that of the instant application, that AT ‘915 teaches fire-protection tapes being avoided or used as needed, and that the combination does not explicitly recite meeting the standard. However, the combination teaches each and every structural element of the claim, as mapped out in the rejection of claim 1. The claim is a product claim, which covers what the product is, not what it does. MPEP 2114. It is irrelevant that Stahl approaches fire resistance differently as alleged by applicant, and that AT ‘915 contemplates use of fire-protection tape, since the combination teaches all the structural elements of the claim. Further, the prior art need not explicitly recite such functional limitation to meet the claim. MPEP 2143. Modifying Stahl to meet the claimed standard would have been desirable because Stahl is concerned with fireproofing structures and preventing flames from spreading (Stahl [0034]), and ASTM E2307 is a known standard in the art that measures the ability of perimeter fire barrier systems to prevent fire from spreading in structures. The combination meets the basic requirements of a Prima Facie case of obvious under MPEP 2143 because there is motivation to combine the references and the result is predictable. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The position held in the previous Office action is maintained.
Claims 3-17 and 19-20 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shriver (US 8671645) in view of AT 005915 U1 (as provided by applicant) (‘AT ‘915’).
Re claim 1, a similar argument against the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 is made with respect to the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915. The response is similar and not repeated here for brevity.
Claims 3-20 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights