Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“pulling device” introduced in claim 1 (because A – “device” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“pulling” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for pulling”). The limitation will be interpreted as a gear motor or its equivalents based on page 16 lines 24-26 of the instant specification.
“driving device” introduced in claim 1 (because A – “device” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“driving” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for driving”). The limitation will be interpreted as a gear motor and spindle or its equivalents based on page 2 lines 17-18 of the instant specification; it is noted that where the limitation “driving device” appears in claims 4-5 and 19-20 there is sufficient structure recited and it is not in that case interpreted under 112(f).
“guiding element” as it appears in claim 2 and 17 (because A – “element” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“guiding” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for guiding”). The limitation will be interpreted as a linear guide rail or its equivalents based on page 2 lines 11-12 of the instant specification; it is noted that where the limitation “guiding element” appears in claims 3 and 18 there is sufficient structure recited and it is not in that case interpreted under 112(f).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Heimbrock (US-20120144586-A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Heimbrock teaches an electric auxiliary driving device (Drive Assembly 200, Figs. 7-10), comprising:
a mounting support (Lower Frame 26, Fig. 7) fixedly connected with a furniture (Stretcher 20, Fig. 1);
a rocker (Second Fork 122 and Support Bracket 216, Fig. 7), wherein a first end of the rocker (Head End Portion 130, Fig. 7) is provided with a rotatable roller (Wheel 110, Fig. 7), and a second end (towards Foot End 32, Fig. 7) of the rocker (122 and 216) is hinged (Transverse Pivot Axis 124, Fig. 7) to the mounting support (26);
a pulling device (Drive Motor 202, Fig. 7) connected with the rocker (216), wherein the pulling device (202) is connected with the roller (110) in a driving manner (Drive Motor 202 driving Wheel 110 via Belt 212, Fig. 7);
a lifting device (Actuator 220 and Gas Spring 222, Fig. 7) comprising a driving device (Actuator 220 providing a driving force) and a sliding block (Output Member 228, Fig. 8) moving along a straight line (Arrow 258, Fig. 8), wherein the driving device (220) drives the rocker (122 and 216) to rotate by driving the sliding block (228) to move (Figs. 8 and 9 illustrated Output Member 228 moving along Arrow 258 such that Support Bracket 216 rotates about Pivot Pin 218); and
a balancing device (Gas Spring 222, Fig. 7) comprising a spring support rod (End 224 comprising a rod, Fig. 7), wherein a first end (End 224, Fig. 7) of the spring support rod is hinged to the rocker (216), and a second end (End 226, Fig. 7) of the spring support rod (224) is hinged to the sliding block (228).
Regarding Claim 16, Heimbrock teaches a hospital bed (Stretcher 20, Fig. 1), comprising:
a bed body (Patient Support Device 54, Fig. 1); and
an electric auxiliary driving device (Drive Assembly 200, Figs. 7-10), wherein a mounting support (Lower Frame 26, Fig. 7) of the electric auxiliary driving device is connected with the bed body (Lower Frame 26 being connected to Patient Support Device 54, Fig. 1), and the electric auxiliary driving device is the electric auxiliary driving device according to claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Heimbrock further teaches that the balancing device (222) further comprises a guiding structure (a structure “GS” surrounding Output Member 228 and guiding it as it moves along Arrow 258, Fig. 7 Annotated), the guiding structure (GS) extends along the straight line (258), the guiding structure (GS) comprises a guiding element (the shape of Output Member 228 forming a guiding member) and a guiding groove (the shape of the Guiding Structure GS forming a groove, Fig. 7 Annotated), the guiding element (228) is inserted into the guiding groove (Fig. 7), the guiding groove (GS) is provided on one of the mounting support (26) and the sliding block (Guiding Groove GS of Actuator 220 being disposed on Lower Frame 26, Fig. 7 Annotated), and the guiding element (228) is arranged on the other one of the mounting support (26) and the sliding block (228).
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Heimbrock further teaches that the driving device (220) comprises a first gear motor (Actuator 220 understood to comprise a motor, see Para. [0065] which teaches that Actuator 220 is supplied with electrical power) and a first spindle (Output Shaft 230, Fig. 7), the first gear motor drives the first spindle (230) to rotate, the first spindle (230) is provided with an external thread (as illustrated in Fig. 7), the sliding block (228) is provided with a first threaded hole (as illustrated in Fig. 9), and the external thread is connected with the first threaded hole in a threaded manner (as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 9).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Heimbrock further teaches that the driving device comprises a driving motor (Actuator 220 understood to comprise a motor, see Para. [0065] which teaches that Actuator 220 is supplied with electrical power) and a second spindle (Output Shaft 230, Fig. 7) connected with the driving motor in a driving manner, and the second spindle (230) is connected with the sliding block (228) and drives the sliding block (228) to move along the straight line (as illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Heimbrock further teaches that the spring support rod (224) comprises a spring support rod shaft (a shaft being illustrated in Fig. 7), an upper spring support rod head (End 226) and a lower spring support rod head (a head being illustrated at a lower end of End 224, Fig. 9), an upper end of the spring support rod shaft is inserted into a first end of the upper spring support rod head (the shaft portion of End 224 being inserted into End 226, Figs. 8 and 9), a second end (upper, Fig. 9) of the upper spring support rod head (226) is hinged to the sliding block (End 226 being hingedly connected to Output Member 228, Figs. 8 and 9), a first end (lower) of the lower spring support rod head (224) is hinged to the rocker (the head portion of End 224 being hingedly connected to Support Bracket 216, Figs. 8 and 9), and a second end (upper) of the lower spring support rod head (the head portion of End 224) is connected with a lower end of the spring support rod shaft (the upper head portion of End 224 being connected with the shaft portion of End 224, Fig. 9); and
the balancing device (40) further comprises a first compression spring (Gas Spring 222 understood to be a compression spring) being sleeved on a periphery of the spring support rod shaft (a barrel portion of Gas Spring 222 being sleeved onto the shaft portion of End 224, Fig. 9), and the first compression spring (222) is sandwiched between the upper spring support rod head (226) and the lower spring support rod head (Gas Spring 222 being disposed between Ends 224 and 226).
Regarding Claim 9, Heimbrock further teaches that the balancing device (222) further comprises an upper spring support rod bearing (“RB1”, Fig. 7 Annotated, End 226 understood to comprise a pin joint having a hole for bearing a pin), a lower spring support rod bearing (“RB2”, Fig. 7 Annotated), a first articulated shaft (“AS1”, Fig. 7 Annotated; End 226 understood to comprise a pin joint which articulates) and a second articulated shaft (“AS2”, Fig. 7 Annotated), the second end (upper) of the upper spring support rod head (226) is hinged to the sliding block (228) through the first articulated shaft (AS1), an inner ring of the upper spring support rod bearing (RB1) is sleeved on a periphery of the first articulated shaft (the inside surface of Hole RB1 being sleeved onto the Pin AS1), an outer ring of the upper spring support rod bearing (RB1) is inserted in the second end of the upper spring support rod head (the Hole RB1 being formed in the upper end of End 226), the first end (lower) of the lower spring support rod head (224) is hinged to the rocker (216) through the second articulated shaft (AS2), an inner ring of the lower spring support rod bearing (AS2) is sleeved on a periphery of the second articulated shaft (the inside surface of Hole RB2 being sleeved onto the Pin AS2, Fig. 7 Annotated), and an outer ring of the lower spring support rod bearing (RB2) is inserted in the first end of the lower spring support rod head (the Hole RB2 being formed in the lower end of End 224).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Heimbrock further teaches that the rocker (122 and 216) comprises a connecting section (Support Bracket 216, Fig. 7; connecting Idler 214 with Second Fork 122) and a bearing fork (Second Fork 122, Fig. 7) connected to each other, the bearing fork (122) comprises two bearing fork arms (“BFA”, Fig. 2 Annotated) arranged at two sides of the roller (110) respectively, the pulling device (202) is connected with one of the bearing fork arms (Drive Motor 202 being connected to Bearing Fork Arms BFA of Second Fork 122 via Lower Frame 26), the roller (110) is provided with a roller shaft (Axle 112, Fig. 7), one end of the roller shaft (the end of Axle 112 illustrated in Fig. 2) is rotatably connected with the bearing fork (122), and an output end (Rotatable Output Shaft 204, Fig. 7) of the pulling device (202) is connected with the other end of the roller shaft (112) in a driving manner (Axle 112 being driven by Drive Motor 202 via Pulley 210 and Belt 212).
PNG
media_image2.png
781
962
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Heimbrock further teaches that the electric auxiliary driving device further comprises a rocker bearing shaft (Transverse Pivot Axis 124, Fig. 7), wherein the mounting support (26) is hinged to the second end (towards Foot End 32, Fig. 7) of the rocker (122 and 216) through the rocker bearing shaft (124), and the spring support rod (224) is movably arranged between the roller (110) and the rocker bearing shaft (End 224 being arranged between Wheel 110 and Transverse Pivot Axis 124, Fig. 9);
the rocker (126 and 216) further comprises a web plate (End Plate 134 and End Plate “EP2”, Fig. 2 Annotated), the two bearing fork arms (BFA) are connected through one side of the web plate (134), and the other side of the web plate (EP2) is connected with the connecting section (End Plate EP2 of the web plate being connected with Support Bracket 216 via Pivot Pin 218, Fig. 2 Annotated);
the connecting section (216) is provided with a groove (“GRV”, Fig. 2 Annotated) disposed obliquely downwards (Groove GRV being disposed at a downwards angle as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated and Fig. 7), and the first end of the spring support rod (224) is inserted into the groove (End 224 being disposed in Groove GRV, Fig. 7 and Fig. 2 Annotated); and
the mounting support (26) is provided with a stopper (Limit Switch 252, Fig. 4), and the stopper (252) abuts against the bearing fork (122) so as to limit a rotation angle of the rocker (Limit Switch 252 being disposed such that an excess movement of Second Fork 122 would make contact with it).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock in view of WANG (CN-112057241-A).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Heimbrock does not teach a linear guide rail or guiding plates/ rails.
WANG teaches, in another hospital bed with driving device (Fig. 1), a guiding element comprising a linear guide rail (Oblique Guide Rail 417, Fig. 15) arranged on a bottom wall of a sliding block (Oblique Guide Rail 417 being disposed on a bottom surface of Wedge Block 412, Fig. 15), a mounting support (Mounting Plate 414, Fig. 15), two parallel guiding ribs (understood to be formed as a part of Oblique Slider 418, Fig. 15), and a space between the two guiding ribs forms a guiding groove (Oblique Slider 418 understood to have a groove in which Oblique Guide Rail 417 runs).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Heimbrock and WANG in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heimbrock’s electric auxiliary driving device/ hospital bed to include a linear guide rail and guiding plates/ rails as suggested by WANG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a smooth and reliable guiding mechanism such as WANG’s linear rail and slider that would beneficially make a smoother operating assembly.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock in view of Koch (US-20160000623-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Heimbrock does not teach a worm and worm wheel.
Koch teaches, in another hospital bed (Operating Table 10, Fig. 1) a worm wheel (Gearwheel 90, Fig. 4) and a worm (Worm Gear 82, Fig. 4) that are capable of rotating relatively and cooperating with each other (being meshed together as illustrated in Fig. 4), a driving motor (Electric Motor 81, Fig. 4) comprises a gear motor (being a motor with a gear reducer comprising Gearwheel 90 and Worm Gear 82), an output end of the gear motor (81) is connected with the worm (82) in a driving manner (Fig. 4), teeth of the worm (82) are engaged with external teeth of the worm wheel (90), the worm wheel (90) is provided with a threaded hole (Para. [0056] teaches that Gearwheel 90 has an internal thread), and a spindle (Rod 120, Fig. 4) penetrates the threaded hole and is connected with the worm wheel (90) in a threaded manner (as taught in Para. [0056]).
The worm arrangement (Gearwheel 90 and Worm Gear 82) of Koch comprises a worm wheel housing (illustrated as part of Drive Unit 80, Fig. 2) fixedly connected with a mounting support (Chassis 22, Fig. 2), and the worm wheel (90) is arranged in the worm wheel housing (80); a first rolling bearing (Bearing 84, Fig. 4) and a second rolling bearing (Electric Motor 81 understood to comprise a bearing), the worm wheel housing (80) comprises a first worm wheel half-housing (Housing Element 94, Fig. 4) and a second worm wheel half-housing (being illustrated in Fig. 2) connected to each other, an inner ring of the first rolling bearing (84) and an inner ring of the second rolling bearing are sleeved on two ends of the worm wheel (as illustrated in Fig. 4) respectively, and the first worm wheel half-housing (94) and the second worm wheel half-housing are configured to fasten the outer ring of the first rolling bearing (the housing of Drive Unit 80 illustrated in Fig. 2 understood to support Bearing 84 by its outer ring) (note: these teachings relate to claim 7 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Heimbrock and Koch in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heimbrock’s electric auxiliary driving device to include a worm and worm wheel as suggested by Koch. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of gear reduction that would beneficially make a better functioning assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Heimbrock, as modified by Koch, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Koch and motivation to combine them with the electric auxiliary driving device of Heimbrock).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock.
Regarding Claim 12, Heimbrock further teaches that the spring support rod (224) comprises an inserting seat (End 226) and an inserting pin (a shaft being illustrated as a part of End 224 in Fig. 7), a first end (upper) of the inserting seat (226) is hinged to {the sliding block} (228), a first end (upper) of the inserting pin (224) is inserted into a second end (lower) of the inserting seat (the shaft of End 224 being inserted into End 226, Fig. 7), and a second end (lower) of the inserting pin (224) is hinged to {the rocker} (216); and
the balancing device (222) further comprises a second compression spring (Gas Spring 222) sleeved on a periphery of the spring support rod (the barrel portion of Gas Spring 222 being sleeved onto the shaft portion of End 224), and the second compression spring (222) is sandwiched between the inserting seat (226) and the inserting pin (Gas Spring 222 being disposed between End 226 and End 224).
Heimbrock does not teach that the inserting pin is hinged to the rocker and the inserting seat is hinged to the sliding block as it teaches the opposite configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the spring support rod of Heimbrock such that the inserting pin is hinged to the rocker and the inserting seat is hinged to the sliding block, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 13, Heimbrock further teaches that the spring support rod (224) further comprises a limiting member (Gas Spring 222 understood to comprise a piston which would limit its stroke as, see Piston 6 in the article “Gas spring” presently attached as NPL) connected with the first end of the inserting pin (the piston understood to be connected to the shaft portion of End 224), the inserting pin (224) comprises an inserting pin rod (the Shaft Portion SFT of End 224) and an inserting pin head (the pin connection portion AS2 of End 224) connected to each other, the first end (upper) of the inserting seat (226) is hinged to the rocker (216; see the 103 rejection of claim 12 above), the second end (lower) of the inserting seat (226) is provided with a second stepped hole (Gas Spring 222 understood to have a hole as in Head Cap 2 as illustrated in “Gas spring”), the inserting pin rod (SFT) is movably inserted into the second stepped hole, a second end (lower) of the inserting pin head (224) is hinged to the sliding block (228, see the 103 rejection of claim 12 above), when the inserting pin head (224) has a maximum distance from the inserting seat (226), the limiting member (the piston of Gas Spring 222) abuts against a stepped surface (a surface of Gas Spring 222 similar to the lower surface of Head Cap 2 as illustrated in “Gas spring”) of the second stepped hole, and when the inserting pin head (224) has a minimum distance from the inserting seat (226), the inserting pin head (224) abuts against the inserting seat (the piston of Gas Spring 222 understood to contact the end of the cylinder portion similar to the lower surface of Cylinder 5 as illustrated in “Gas spring”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, as highlighted above, Heimbrock, generally discloses electric auxiliary driving device with similar components to the claimed invention.
However neither Heimbrock nor any of the other cited prior art specifically disclose a spring support rod shaft that is comprised of a tap bolt and is arranged as claimed as required by claim 10.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, claims 10-11, as far as they include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights