Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 10-14-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
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
2. 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 16-17, 20 and 23-25 are 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.
Claim 16 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed automated system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in lines 4-9 of page 9 of applicant’s originally filed specification there is no specific structure detailed as related to the automated system in that movement of the fluid jetting system is disclosed but no specific structural components are detailed to provide for this movement and therefore it is unclear to what the automated system encompasses as claimed.
Claim 17 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed skin release fluid jetting system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in lines 23-26 of page 18 of applicant’s originally filed specification there is no specific structure detailed with respect to the skin release fluid jetting system and therefore it is unclear to what the skin release fluid jetting system encompasses as claimed.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the entire length" in line 2 and “the surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the direction of the fluid impacting" in line 2, “the descaled surface” in line 2 and “the direction of extension” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the orientation of nozzles" in line 1, “the direction of the fluid impacting” in line 4 and “the direction of extension” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,183,679 to Kee.
Referring to claims 1 and 21, Kee discloses an apparatus for processing of fish products and associated method comprising a descaling apparatus for removing scales from defleshed fish skin, the descaling apparatus comprising, a conveyor system – at 2,4,6, for receiving defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a see figure 1, wherein the defleshed fish skin comprises skin and scales with a major part of the flesh removed – see figure 1 and column 2 lines 53-55 detailing any fish product is used in the device and the device of Kee is capable of operating as intended if the fish product is a mostly defleshed fish product given the orientation of the conveyor as seen in figure 1, a fluid jetting system – at 12,14, a descaling surface – at 2,6, for holding the defleshed fish skin with the scale side facing the fluid jetting system – at 12,14 – see figure 1 (it is noted that applicant’s claimed invention has the conveyor system and the descaling surface as the same component being the spiked conveyor belt and therefore the same component of the prior art can be used to disclose both the conveyor system and descaling surface so as to be consistent with applicant’s claimed invention), wherein the fluid jetting system directs jets of fluid under pressure toward the defleshed fish skin with the jets configured to impact the defleshed fish skin at an angle – see angled nozzles of 12,14 in figure 1, in order to thereby bend and detach the scales – see figure 1 and column 2 lines 40-52, and wherein the descaling surface – at 2,6, and fluid jetting system – at 12,14, are arranged for providing relative movement between the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, and the jets of fluid of the jetting system – at 12,14, in order that the full area of the defleshed fish skin is exposed to the fluid jets – at 12,14 – see figure 1 where the exposed surface of the fish is exposed to and contacted by the fluid emitted by the fluid jets extending along the entire width of the conveyor and descaling surface and the descaling surface – at 2,6 is movable via items 4 relative to the fish skin – at 9,9a and the jets from items 12,14 and the fluid jets – at 12,14 are movable via adjustable connections – at 16,18 with respect to the fish skins – at 9,9a and the jets of fluid from items 12,14 – see adjustment detailed in column 3 lines 19-24 and applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not detail the descaling surface and fluid jetting system are between the fish skin and the fluid jets. Specific to claim 21, Kee further discloses receiving defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, at the conveyor system – at 2-6 – see via 8 in figure 1, and conveying it – at 9,9a, to the descaling surface – at 2,6 – see figure 1, directing jets of fluid under pressure from the fluid jetting system – at 12,14, toward the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a – see figures 1-3, with the jets configured to impact the defleshed fish skin at an angle – see angled nozzles – at 12,14 in figure 1, in order to thereby bend and detach the scales – see figures 1-3 and column 2 line 40 to column 3 line 24, and moving the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, relative to the fluid jetting system – at 12,14, in order that the full area of the defleshed fish skin is exposed to the fluid jets – from 12,14 – see nozzles disposed across width of the conveyor – at 2-6 as seen in figure 3. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed conveyor system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the conveyor system is detailed as a conveying surface of a spiked conveyor belt and Kee discloses a spiked conveyor belt – at 2,6 as seen in figure 1. Further, it is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fluid jetting system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the fluid jetting system is detailed as nozzles – 132 and Kee discloses nozzles – at the ends of 12,14 as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 2, Kee further discloses the descaling surface is a conveying surface also forming a part of the conveyor system – see at 2,6 in figure 1.
Referring to claim 3, Kee further discloses the descaling surface includes spikes – at 6, for piercing and hence gripping the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 5, Kee further discloses the descaling surface – at 2,6, is configured so that an exposed surface of the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, faces in a downward direction – see figure 1, and wherein the fluid jetting system – at 12,14, is arranged to direct the jets of fluid in an upward direction, angled to the exposed surface of the defleshed fish skin – see at 12,14 in figure 1.
Referring to claim 6, Kee further discloses a retention device – at the top of 28 and – at 34, for preventing the defleshed fish skins – at 9,9a, from detaching from the descaling surface – at 2,6, during the descaling process – see figure 1 and column 2 lines 35-39. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed retention device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the retention device is detailed as a grill with parallel rods and the retention device – at the top of 28 and – at 34 of Kee is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s grill with parallel rod in that the retention device – at 34 of Kee provides for the same function of holding the fish in place during processing.
Referring to claim 7, Kee further discloses the descaling surface – at 2,6, is a downward facing descaling surface – see portion of 2,6 that contacts the fish – at 9,9a in figure 1, and wherein the retention device – at the top of 28 and – at 34, extends parallel to the descaling surface – see at 28 and 34 in relation to 2,6 in figure 1, and below the descaling surface – see top of 28 below items 2,6 as seen in figure 1, so that the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, cannot fall away from the descaling surface – at 2,6, without being caught by the retention device – at the top of 28 – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 8, Kee further discloses the descaling surface – at 2,6, and the retention device – at the top of 28 and – at 34, are configured to provide a gap – between 2,6 and the top of 28, to receive the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a – see figure 1, and wherein when the device is in use the defleshed fish skin in the gap between the descaling surface and the retention device is subject to a compressive pressure – via 34 – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 11, Kee further discloses the jets of fluid rotate with an axis of rotation parallel to the direction of the jet – see at 12,14 in figures 1-3 and column 3 lines 19-24 where the jetting system can have its angle adjusted and therefore rotated about an axis parallel to the jets emitted from 12,14 as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 12, Kee further discloses the fluid jetting system – at 12,14, directs jets of fluid at the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, - see figure 1, to remove the scales with the jets of fluid being in the tail to head direction to push the scales away from the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a – see figures 1-3 and column 2 line 27 to column 3 line 24.
Referring to claim 13, Kee further discloses the jets of fluid each comprise a center line and the center lines of the angled jets – from 12,14, of fluid are angled at 5-40 degrees to the vertical – see column 3 lines 13-18, and wherein the a spray pattern of the jets includes a spread of +5-30 degrees around the centerline of the spray – see multiple nozzles – at 12,14 in figure 1 and see column 3 lines 13-18.
Referring to claim 14, Kee further discloses a reservoir – at 44, for receiving detached scales along with fluid from the jets after impaction on the descaling surface and/or defleshed fish skin – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 17, Kee further discloses a release mechanism – at 10, for removing the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, from the descaling surface – at 2,6 – see figure 1, the release mechanism comprising one or more of, a scraper, a brush, a roller, one or more guides, and a skin release fluid jetting system – see guide – at 10 in figure 1. It is noted that applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed release mechanism in that applicant claims specific structural components for the release mechanism being the claimed scraper, brush, roller, guides and fluid jetting system. Further, it is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed skin release fluid jetting system and the skin release fluid jetting system as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in lines 23-26 of page 18 of applicant’s originally filed specification has no specific structure detailed with respect to the skin release fluid jetting system and the skin release fluid jetting system is not required by the claim given the phrase “one or more of” in line 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee as applied to claim 3 above.
Referring to claim 4, Kee does not disclose he spikes have an exposed length of 2 mm or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee and make the spikes any desired length including the claimed 2mm or more, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper holding of the fish portion in place during operation so as to effect a better treatment of the fish portion as desired.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,077,738 to Benson et al.
Referring to claim 15, Kee does not disclose sensors for determining the location and/or orientation of the defleshed fish skin at one or more points. Benson et al. does disclose sensors – at 60, for determining the location of the product at one or more points – see figures 2-4 and column 6 lines 12-45. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee and add the sensors of Benson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the fluid jets contact the product while conserving the fluid as desired.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benson et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0154586 to Goto.
Referring to claim 16, Kee does not disclose an automated system for controlling the relative movement of the defleshed fish skin and action of the fluid jetting system in order to modify the location and/or orientation of the fish skin to align it with the location, direction and action of the angled jets of fluid and the automated system providing lateral and/or angular movement of the jetting system relative to the defleshed fish skin along the descaling surface. Benson et al. does disclose an automated system – at 60-64, for controlling the relative movement of the product and action of the fluid jetting system – at 58,59, in order to modify the location and/or orientation of the product to align it with the location, direction and action of the angled jets of fluid – from 58,59 – see figures 2-4 and column 6 lines 12-45 where movement of the product is controlled via the controlled conveyor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee and add the automated system of Benson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the fluid jets contact the product while conserving the fluid as desired. Further, Goto discloses the automated system – at 10, providing lateral movement of the jetting system – at 28-36, relative to the fish skin – see figures 1-4 with lateral movement to change the position of the jetting system components – at 28-36. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee as modified by Benson et al. and add the lateral movement of the jetting system as disclosed by Goto, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to process fish of different types and sizes as desired. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed automated system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in lines 4-9 of page 9 of applicant’s originally filed specification there is no specific structure detailed as related to the automated system in that movement of the fluid jetting system is disclosed but no specific structural components are detailed to provide for this movement and therefore the system – at 60-64 of Benson et al. is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed automated system since items 60-64 provide similar function to applicant’s automated system as claimed.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,378,194 to Hjorth.
Referring to claim 18, Kee does not disclose a cutting device for receiving fish skin with attached flesh and for removing a major portion of the flesh to provide the defleshed fish skins, wherein the apparatus is arranged to convey the defleshed fish skins from the cutting device to the conveyor system of the descaling apparatus. Hjorth does disclose a cutting device – at 210-216, for receiving fish skin with attached flesh and for removing a major portion of the flesh to provide the defleshed fish skins – see figures 1-7, wherein the apparatus is arranged to convey – via items 222,224,230,232, the defleshed fish skins from the cutting device – at 210-216, to the conveyor system of the descaling apparatus – see at 234 where the fish is moved and capable for further processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee and add the cutting device of Hjorth, so as to yield the predictable result of providing the fish product in the desired form for further processing as necessary. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cutting device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cutting device is detailed as a conveyor belt and knife and Hjorth discloses a conveyor belt – at 222,224,230,232 and knife – at 210,212,214,216.
Referring to claim 19, Kee as modified by Hjorth further discloses the cutting device comprises a cutter conveyor belt – at 222,224,230,232, and a knife – at 210,212,214,216, wherein the knife – at 214,216, is placed with its cutting edge extending across the width of the cutter conveyor belt – see figure 1 of Hjorth, and perpendicular to the direction of movement of the conveyor belt – see figure 1 of Hjorth. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee and add the cutting device of Hjorth, so as to yield the predictable result of providing the fish product in the desired form for further processing as necessary.
Referring to claim 20, Kee as modified by Hjorth does not disclose the knife is located with the entire length of the cutting edge spaced apart from the surface of the cutter conveyor belt by a distance of 3 mm or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kee as modified by Hjorth and have the cutting edge at any suitable distance from the conveyor including the claimed 3mm or less, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring engaging of the cutting edge with the fish during use.
Claim(s) 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee as applied to claims 1 or 21 above, and further in view of Goto.
Referring to claim 23, Kee does not disclose the angle of the fluid jets is such that a horizontal component of the direction of the fluid impacting the scaled surface is opposite to the direction of extension of the scales away from a connecting point between the scales and the skin, to provide an angular force attacking a free end of the scale. Goto does disclose the angle of the fluid jets is such that a horizontal component of the direction of the fluid impacting the scaled surface is opposite to the direction of extension of the scales away from a connecting point between the scales and the skin, to provide an angular force attacking a free end of the scale – see at 20-36 in figures 1-10 and see for example paragraphs [0048]-[0054]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Kee and add the fluid jets providing an angular force to the free end of the scales as disclosed by Goto, so as to yield the predictable result of providing efficient removal of the scales from the fish as desired.
Referring to claim 24, Kee as modified by Goto further discloses the defleshed fish skin is provided to the descaling surface such that the direction of extension of the scales away from the connecting point between the scales and the skin is the same as the direction of travel of the conveyor system – see fish orientation in figures 1-2 of Kee.
Referring to claim 25, Kee does not disclose the orientation of nozzles corresponding to each of the fluid jets can be manually set or automatically changed in accordance with the expected orientation of the defleshed fish skin, in order that the angle of the fluid jets is such that a horizontal component of the direction of the fluid impacting the scaled surface is opposite to the direction of extension of the scales away from a connecting point between the scales and the skin, to provide an angular force attacking a free end of the scale. Goto does disclose the orientation of nozzles – at 28-32, corresponding to each of the fluid jets can be manually set or automatically changed in accordance with the expected orientation of the defleshed fish skin – see figures 1-4, in order that the angle of the fluid jets is such that a horizontal component of the direction of the fluid impacting the scaled surface is opposite to the direction of extension of the scales away from a connecting point between the scales and the skin, to provide an angular force attacking a free end of the scale – see for example figures 1-10 and paragraphs [0048]-[0054]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Kee and add the fluid jets providing an angular force to the free end of the scales as disclosed by Goto, so as to yield the predictable result of providing efficient removal of the scales from the fish as desired.
Referring to claim 26, Kee does not disclose the fluid jetting system comprises a plurality of angled jets of fluid – see at 12,14 of Kee and – at 28-34 of Goto, and is configured to provide jets in a staggered pattern across the defleshed fish skin – see figures 1-10 of Goto. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Kee and add the fluid jets providing an angular force to the free end of the scales as disclosed by Goto, so as to yield the predictable result of providing efficient removal of the scales from the fish as desired.
Referring to claim 27, Kee as modified by Goto further discloses he plurality of angled jets is arranged in multiple rows – see at 28-34 of Goto in figures 1-10, such that the angled jets in a given row are offset in position from the angled jets of another row – see at 28-34 in figures 1-10 of Goto. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Kee and add the fluid jets providing an angular force to the free end of the scales as disclosed by Goto, so as to yield the predictable result of providing efficient removal of the scales from the fish as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 10-14-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20 detailed in the last office action dated 7-14-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 10-14-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 18 and 21 detailed in the last office action dated 7-14-25.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 16, applicant’s claim amendments dated 10-14-25 do not add any specific structure related to the claimed automated system and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 17, there are other generic terms such as system that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis that are considered substitutes for the term means as seen in MPEP section 2181, and therefore this rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 20, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 10-14-25 obviates the rejections related to the range within a range and also for the rejections related to the optional claim language. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 10-14-25 do not address the antecedent basis issues detailed in the last office action dated 7-14-25 and therefore these rejections are maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, applicant does not claim water jet pressure and does not claim any relation of water jet pressure to possible damage to the fish and therefore these arguments are not commensurate with the claimed invention. Further, column 2 lines 53-55 of the Kee reference US 5183679 detailing any fish product would encompass defleshed fish skin in that Kee discloses fish with skin and scales are being processes and the whole fish and fillets detailed in this portion of Kee are examples of the types of fish products processed by Kee but is not the only products being processed by Kee. Further, Kee discloses fluid jetting system – at 12,14, are arranged for providing relative movement between the defleshed fish skin – at 9,9a, and the jets of fluid of the jetting system – at 12,14, in order that the full area of the defleshed fish skin is exposed to the fluid jets – at 12,14 – see figure 1 where the exposed surface of the fish is exposed to and contacted by the fluid emitted by the fluid jets extending along the entire width of the conveyor and descaling surface and see column 3 lines 1-12 where only the scales can be removed and therefore would be separated from the skin. Further, applicant reiterates the arguments of fluid pressure and damage to the fish and as detailed earlier applicant does not claim water jet pressure and does not claim any relation of water jet pressure to possible damage to the fish and therefore these arguments are not commensurate with the claimed invention. Applicant then argues about the angle of incidence of the fluid jets and the claims do not detail angle of incidence and only detailed the jets are angled and Kee discloses angled jets as seen via items 12,14 in figure 1. Further, the skin and scale byproduct having the scales removed after the flesh is removed is disclosed by Kee in that as seen in column 2 lines 53-55 any fish product which would include defleshed skin and scales can be processed. Further, the fish and scales byproduct not able to be processed when frozen are each not detailed in the claims and therefore these remarks/comments are not commensurate with the claimed invention. Further, applicant’s remarks dated 10-14-25 discuss claim 14 as an independent claim, but this claim is a dependent claim and the claim limitations are not argued by applicant and the Kee reference discloses the claim limitations of claim 14 as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action. Further, with respect to claim 21, applicant relies upon the same remarks/arguments with respect to claim 1 discussed earlier. Further, with respect to claims 2-8, 11-13 and 15-20, applicant appears to rely on the same remarks/arguments with respect to parent claim1 discussed earlier. Regarding the new claims 23-27, see the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643