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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 as filed on 08/27/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second main body support portions (Claim 2), the spacer (Claim 3) must be shown and labelled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/842188 (herein ‘188) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications name the same inventive entity.
In regards to Claim 1, both the immediate application and (Claims 1 and 4) of ‘188 disclose
An anchor support that is configured to support an anchor provided on a foundation the anchor support comprising:
a formwork attachment portion configured to be attached to an outer surface of a formwork of the foundation;
an anchor support portion extending from the formwork attachment portion and being configured to support the anchor (Claim 1 of ‘188); and
a main body support portion provided on a lower surface of the anchor support portion to support the anchor support portion in the formwork,
wherein the main body support portion is configured to be disposed on an upper surface of the formwork (Claim 4 of ‘188).
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/842188 (herein ‘188) (reference application) in view of Gerald Nasca (US 5337534 A)(Here in Nasca). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications name the same inventive entity.
In regards to Claim 12, both the immediate application and (Claim 6) of ‘188 disclose
An anchor installation method for installing an anchor to a formwork of a foundation, the anchor installation method comprising:
adjusting a position of the anchor support relative to the formwork;
attaching a formwork attachment portion of the anchor support to an outer surface of the formwork of the foundation;
However, ‘188 fails to disclose
disposing a main body support portion configured to support an anchor support on an upper surface of the formwork;
attaching the anchor to an anchor support portion of the anchor support
Furthermore, Nasca discloses
disposing [Figs 2-3, showing a main body support disposed] a main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment) configured to support an anchor support(10) [Fig 1] on an upper surface [Fig 2, Upper Surface of (F)] of the formwork (F) [Fig 2];
attaching [Fig 3, Showing the anchor (B’) attached] the anchor (B) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] to an anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] of the anchor support (10) [Fig 3]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor installation method by the immediate application to further include disposing a main body support portion configured to support an anchor support on an upper surface of the formwork and attaching the anchor to an anchor support portion of the anchor support as disclosed by Nasca. When modified, the method of disposing and attaching allows the anchor support to formally function as intended, furthermore allowing for an ease of installation.
In regards to Claims 2-11, rejected due to dependency on rejected independent claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claim 4, “the vertical direction” as recited in line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “The vertical distance” is intended to recite “A vertical direction”.
In regards to Claim 6, “the vertical direction” as recited in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the vertical direction” is intended to recite “A vertical direction”.
In regards to Claim 8, “the horizontal direction” as recited in line 9 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the horizontal direction” is intended to recite “A horizontal direction”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerald Nasca (US 5337534 A)(Here in Nasca).
In regards to Claim 1, Nasca discloses
An anchor support (10) [Fig 1] that is configured to support an anchor (B) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] provided on a foundation (C) {Fig 3] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] , the anchor support (10) [Fig 1] comprising:
a formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] configured to be attached [Fig 1, Attached Via Utilizing Elements (172, 174)] to an outer surface [Outer surface of (F), Fig 2] of a formwork (F) [Fig 2] of the foundation (C) {Fig 3] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] ;
an anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] extending from the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] and being configured to support the anchor (B) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47]; and
a main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment) provided on a lower surface [Fig 2, Lower Surface of element (50)] of the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] to support the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] in the formwork (F) [Fig 2],
wherein the main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment) is configured to be disposed [Fig 2] on an upper surface [Fig 2, Upper Surface of (F)] of the formwork (F) [Fig 2].
In regards to Claim 2, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein the main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment) includes a first main body support portion (60) [Fig 1] and a second main body support portion (180) [Fig 1] disposed away [Fig 1, Showing Disposed away from (60)] from the first main body support portion (60) [Fig 1].
In regards to Claim 6, Nasca discloses
The anchor support(10) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein
the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] includes an attachment plate-shaped member (170) [Fig 1] extending along the outer surface [Outer surface of (F), Fig 2] of the formwork (F) [Fig 2], and
the attachment plate-shaped member (170) [Fig 1] is provided with a first attachment hole (172, 174) [Fig 2] formed to extend in the vertical direction [Fig 2, Showing Vertically] .
In regards to Claim 7, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] is formed integrally [As shown in Fig 6, Showing Integrally] with the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] and the main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment).
In regards to Claim 9, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein
the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] includes a base portion (61) [Fig 1] connected to the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] and an anchor attachment portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comment) located opposite [Fig 1, showing opposite] to the base portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comment) in a first direction [Fig 1, showing first direction] and to which the anchor (B) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] is attached [Via (N), Fig 2] , and
the anchor attachment portion (50) [Fig 2] is provided with an anchor hole (62, 64) [Fig 1] through which the anchor (B) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] can be inserted [Fig 3, Showing Inserted] .
In regards to Claim 12, Nasca discloses
An anchor installation method [Col 4, Line 39-41] for installing an anchor(10) [Fig 1] to a formwork (F) [Fig 2] of a foundation (C) {Fig 3] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] , the anchor installation method comprising:
disposing [Figs 2-3, showing a main body support disposed] a main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment) configured to support an anchor support(10) [Fig 1] on an upper surface [Fig 2, Upper Surface of (F)] of the formwork (F) [Fig 2];
adjusting [Figs 2-3, showing the position of the anchor support adjusted] a position of the anchor support(10) [Fig 1] relative to the formwork (F) [Fig 2]; a third step of attaching [Figs 2-3, Showing attached, as defined by Merriam Webster “Connected or joined to something”] a formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] of the anchor support(10) [Fig 1] to an outer surface [Outer surface of (F), Fig 2] of the formwork (F) [Fig 2] of the foundation (C) {Fig 3] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] ; and
attaching [Fig 3, Showing the anchor (B’) attached] the anchor (B) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] to an anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] of the anchor support (10) [Fig 3]
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerald Nasca (US 5337534 A)(Here in Nasca) in view of Larry Moeller (US 20140157699 A1)(Herein Moeller)
In regards to Claim 3, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 2.
However, Nasca fails to disclose
further comprising a spacer configured to adjust a height of the anchor support portion with respect to the upper surface of the formwork.
wherein the spacer is inserted between the upper surface of the formwork and at least one of the first main body support portion and the second main body support portion.
Furthermore, Moeller discloses
further comprising a spacer (150) [Fig 2A] configured to adjust a height [0099; “the "stepped" front surfaces of the spacer plates enable the user to position the spacer plates to adjust to different thicknesses of the space between the concrete slab and the panel bracket that must be filled to level the panel bracket and/or to position the panel bracket the desired distance from the concrete slab.”] of the anchor support portion (50, Nasca) [Fig 2] with respect to the upper surface of the formwork (F, Nasca) [Fig 2],
wherein the spacer (150) [Fig 2A] is inserted between the upper surface (F, Nasca) [Fig 2] of the formwork (F, Nasca) [Fig 2] and at least one of the first main body support portion (60, Nasca) [Fig 1] and the second main body support portion (180, Nasca) [Fig 1].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the the anchor support by Nasca to further include further comprising a spacer configured to adjust a height of the anchor support portion with respect to the upper surface of the formwork wherein the spacer is inserted between the upper surface of the formwork and at least one of the first main body support portion and the second main body support portion as disclosed by Moeller. When modified, the spacer with all limitations allows for an ease of adjustability [see Moeller Paragraph 0099, (as referenced above as well)].
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerald Nasca (US 5337534 A)(Here in Nasca) in view of Sputo (US 20200370291 A)(Herein Sputo)
In regards to Claim 4, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein
the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] includes an attachment plate-shaped member (170) [Fig 1] extending along the outer surface [Outer surface of (F), Fig 2] of the formwork (F) [Fig 2].
However, Nasca fails to disclose
the attachment plate-shaped member is provided with an opening located between the upper surface of the formwork and the lower surface of the anchor support portion in the vertical direction.
Furthermore, Sputo discloses
the attachment plate-shaped member (170, Nasca) [Fig 1] is provided with an opening (120)[Fig 5] located between the upper surface [Fig 2, Upper surface of (F) , Nasca] of the formwork (F, Nasca) [Fig 2] and the lower surface [Fig 2, Lower Surface of element (50), Nasca] of the anchor support portion (50, Nasca) [Fig 2] in the vertical direction [Fig 2, attachment plate member is in the vertical position, fastener opening intended to be in the vertical position relative to the attachment plate, Nasca]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor support by Nasca to further include the attachment plate-shaped member is provided with an opening located between the upper surface of the formwork and the lower surface of the anchor support portion in the vertical direction as disclosed by Sputo. When modified, the attachment plate-shaped member provided with an opening and all limitations allows for facilitating attachment via fastener.
In regards to Claim 8, Nasca discloses
The anchor support(10) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein
the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2] is configured separately [Fig 6, Showing each piece is separate] from the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] and the main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment),
the main body support portion [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comment) includes a support plate-shaped member (120) [Fig 6] connected [Fig 6, Showing Connected] to the formwork attachment portion (150) [Fig 1] and supporting [Fig 6, Showing Supporting] the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 1].
However, Nasca fails to disclose
the support plate-shaped member is provided with a second attachment hole, and the anchor support portion is provided with a third attachment hole formed to extend in the horizontal direction.
Furthermore, Sputo discloses
the support plate-shaped member (120, Nasca) [Fig 6] is provided with a second attachment hole (120) [Fig 5] , and the anchor support portion (50, Nasca) [Fig 1] is provided with a third attachment hole (76, Nasca) [Fig 5] [Col 7, Line 23-24, Detailing “Nail Hole” as intended to be used for attachment] formed to extend in the horizontal direction [Fig 5, as shown extending horizontal axis, Nasca].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor support by Nasca to further include a second attachment hole as disclosed by Sputo. When modified, the attachment hole allows for ease of facilitating secure attachment.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerald Nasca (US 5337534 A)(Here in Nasca) in view of Sputo (US 20200370291 A)(Herein Sputo) and Stauffer et al. (US 20150184371 A1)(Herein Stauffer)
In regards to Claim 5, Nasca as modified discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 4 and the opening (120, Sputo)[Fig 5].
However, Nasca fails to disclose
wherein the opening is provided with a reference mark related to an installation position of the anchor.
Furthermore, Stauffer discloses wherein the opening (120, Sputo)[Fig 5] is provided with a reference mark (6) [Fig 1] related to an installation position [0039] of the anchor (B, Nasca) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor support by Nasca to further include a reference mark as disclosed by Stauffer. When modified, the reference mark with all limitations allows for visual confirmation of correctness when installing in the field. [See Stauffer, Paragraph 0039]
Additionally, it has been held that it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify opening of sputo to have a references mark related to the installation position of the anchor in order to facilitate attachment. Additionally, when modified the reference mark allows for secure attachment in the field during construction, it would be obvious to include this to allow field support staff to accurately and precisely install the anchor support. Since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerald Nasca (US 5337534 A)(Here in Nasca) in view of Okura Yoshikuni (JP-2008274713-A)(Herein Yoshikuni)
In regards to Claim 10, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 9
However, fails to disclose
the anchor support portion includes a cutout portion and
the cutout portion is provided between the base portion and the anchor attachment portion of the anchor support portion.
Furthermore, Yoshikuni discloses
the anchor support portion (50, Nasca) [Fig 2] includes a cutout portion [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) and
the cutout portion [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) is provided between the base portion (61, Nasca) [Fig 1] and the anchor attachment portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Nasca] (see examiners comment) of the anchor support portion (50, Nasca) [Fig 2].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor support by Nasca to further include the anchor support portion includes a cutout portion and the cutout portion is provided between the base portion and the anchor attachment portion of the anchor support portion as disclosed by Yoshikuni. When modified, the cutout portion with all limitations allow for ease of installation in tight spaces, allowing for an increased number of scenarios for installing the anchor support.
In regards to Claim 11, Nasca discloses
The anchor support (10) [Fig 1] according to claim 9
However, Nasca fails to disclose
further comprising an additional anchor support portion supported by the anchor support portion, wherein
the additional anchor support portion includes an additional base portion attached to the anchor attachment portion of the anchor support portion, and an additional anchor attachment portion located opposite to the additional base portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction is attached, and
the additional anchor attachment portion is provided with an additional anchor hole through which the anchor can be inserted .
Furthermore, Yoshikuni discloses
further comprising an additional anchor support portion (23) [Fig 5] supported by the anchor support portion (50) [Fig 2], wherein
the additional anchor support portion (23) [Fig 5] includes an additional base portion [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) attached [Fig 5 via (41)] to the anchor attachment portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Nasca] (see examiners comment) of the anchor support portion (50, Nasca) [Fig 2] , and an additional anchor attachment portion (23) [Fig 5] located opposite [Fig 5, showing opposite side] to the additional base portion [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) in a second direction intersecting [When modified, intending to be intersecting in a second direction] the first direction [Figs 1-6, showing first direction, Nasca] to which the anchor (B, Nasca) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] is attached, and
the additional anchor attachment portion (23) [Fig 5] is provided with an additional anchor hole [Figs 5, Showing 4 openings for anchor (A) to be installed] through which the anchor (B, Nasca) [Fig 2] [Col 5, Lines 45-47] can be inserted [Fig 2, Nasca].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor support by Nasca to further include further comprising an additional anchor support portion supported by the anchor support portion, wherein the additional anchor support portion includes an additional base portion attached to the anchor attachment portion of the anchor support portion, and an additional anchor attachment portion located opposite to the additional base portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction is attached, and the additional anchor attachment portion is provided with an additional anchor hole through which the anchor can be inserted as disclosed by Yoshikuni. When modified, additional anchor support portion with all limitations allow for ease of installation in tight spaces, allowing for an increased number of scenarios for installing the anchor support, pivoting from a straight installation portion to rotating installation portion (allowing a 90 deg installation mechanism).
Examiners comment
PNG
media_image1.png
622
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nasca, Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
676
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoshikuni, Figure 5
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights