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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Continuing Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,564,523 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the IDS filed with the instant application lists only foreign prior art references and NPL. The omission of US Patents and US Patent Publications could result in a reissue patent’s issuing without all the prior art documents listed on the original patent. Should applicant want any prior art documents listed in any resulting reissue, the applicant must submit the respective prior art in an IDS.
Maintenance Fees
Applicant is reminded the 3.5 year maintenance fee is currently due. The payment window opened on January 21, 2026, the surcharge beings on August 1, 2026 and the last day to pay is February 1, 2027. The reissue will not publish if the maintenance fee is not paid before the payment period expires.
Protest under 37 CFR 1.291
A protest under 37 CFR 1.291 was submitted on December 1, 2025. Proof of service upon the reissue applicant was provided. The purpose of the protest is to:
Provide evidence that at least independent claims 1, 20 and 21 are obvious in light of the prior art submitted by the protestor.
Show that independent claims 20 and 21 attempt to recapture subject mattered surrendered during the prosecution of the underlying patent.
All prior art references provided in the protest have been considered. Each of the prior art references has at least one teaching that is applicable to the claims in this reissue application. Each of the prior art references provided in the protest have been listed on the attached PTO-892. Copies are not furnished herewith given that they were served upon the reissue applicant.
Exhibit A to Chen discloses a juice extractor with a cutting part for cutting material for juice extraction, the cutting part being located within a hopper and above a screw and being rotatable in the same axial direction as the rotation axis of the screw wherein the cutting part is coupled only at one side to a lower end surface of the hopper, the cutting part has a chopping blade extending upward to an open space inside the hopper that becomes smaller towards a tip of the upper end part. Exhibit A to Chen fails to disclose the cutting part having chopping blade that extends in a spiral. Further Exhibit A to Chen also fails to disclose the cutting part having slicing blade that extends horizontally on a lower end surface of the hopper. Exhibit B to Ohashi teaches a cutting part with a spiral chopping blade (4) and a horizontal blade (50) that could be interpreted as a slicing blade. Exhibit C to Wang discloses blades (32) and (33) that have cross sections that become smaller towards a tip of the blade. Exhibit D to Sun teaches blades that extend in a spiral form. Exhibit E to Kim teaches a blade that extends in spiral form. Exhibit F to Oh teaches a cutting part with blades extending along different trajectories. The Examiner agrees that the replacement of one blade having a particular shape with another blade of a different shape would appear to be an obvious substitution to a POSA as detailed in the below prior art rejections.
The protester’s position with respect to the recapture of subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the application for the ‘523 patents has been fully considered. The Examiner’s recapture analysis is set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 – Oath/Dec
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
MPEP 1414 II. (B) states that "in identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase or expression in the specification or in an original claim and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative." The error statement must specifically identify an error by referencing at least one patent claim and specific claim language within the patented claim wherein the error lies. Applicant’s error statement fails to reference a specific patented claim or patented claim language. Applicant may wish to consider reciting “This is a broadening reissue. Patent claim 1 includes the phrases “in a spiral form” and “a cross section that becomes smaller towards a top of the upper end part.” These phrases are unduly limiting and unnecessary for patentability.”
Claims 1-50 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Recapture
Claims 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30, 32-33, 41-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
MPEP § 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Recapture Analysis: Step 1
Reissue claims 20-50 are broader in scope than patent claims 1-19. Reissue claims 20-50 do not require the following limitations which were present in all of the patent claims:
A chopping blade extending upwards in “in a spiral form”; and
A chopping blade has “a cross-section that becomes smaller towards a tip of the upper end part to form a shape of an ox horn.”
Therefore, step 1 of the three-step test is met for reissue claims 20-50.
Recapture Analysis: Step 2, first sub-step
The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP § 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by the applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art.
During prosecution of the application for the ‘523 patent, the Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 over art in a non-final office action mailed on June 13, 2022. The Examiner indicated claims 5, 6, 8, 10 and 16-19 as containing allowable subject matter.
Applicant filed a response on September 13, 2022 amending independent claim 1 to include the following limitations:
“the cutting part being connected to the screw and rotatable in the same axial direction as the rotation axis of the screw”;
the cutting part “is rotatably coupled at only one side on a lower end surface of the hopper so that an open space that is not interfered above the cutting part is formed inside the hopper”;
a chopping blade extending upwards in a spiral form “towards the open space inside the hopper”; and
“an upper end part of the chopping blade has a cross-section that becomes smaller towards a tip of the upper end part to form a shape of an ox horn”.
The limitations that were added to independent claim 1, listed above, to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art are thus surrender-generating limitations (SGL).1
Recapture Analysis: Step 2, second sub-step
The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitations are directed to limitations relied upon by Applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
Reissue claim 20 is broadened with respect to patent claim 1 to omit:
a chopping blade extending upwards in “a spiral form”; and
“an upper end part of the chopping blade has a cross-section that becomes smaller towards a tip of the upper end part to form”
The omission of item (b) is an omission in the area of surrender generating limitations. Item (b) is, however, reintroduced in dependent claim 22. Therefore, step 2 of the three-part test is met for reissue claimed 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 41, 43-46.
Reissue claim 21 is broadened with respect to patent claim 1 to omit:
“an upper end part of the chopping blade has a cross-section that becomes smaller towards a tip of the upper end part to form a shape of an ox horn.”
The omission of item (a) is in the area of surrender generating limitations. Therefore, step 2 of the three-part test is met for reissue claim 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 42, 47-50.
Recapture Analysis: Step 3
The third step in the recapture analysis considers the significance of claim limitations that were added and deleted during prosecution of the patent to be reissued in order to determine whether the reissue claims are materially narrowed in other respects so as to avoid the recapture rule. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated that to avoid the recapture rule "the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured." Id. at 1361, 98 USPQ2d at 1644.
In this case, reissue claims 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30, 32-33, 41-50 are “not materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured.”
Therefore, reissue claims 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30, 32-33, 41-50 improperly recapture surrendered subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 – Original Patent
Claims 20, 22-23, 26, 28, 32, 41 and 43-46 are rejected under 35 USC 251 for failing to comply with the original-patent requirement. MPEP 1412.01 states that the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. MPEP 1412.01 further provides guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are "for the invention disclosed in the original patent" as:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied; and
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application.
The presence of some disclosure (description and enablement) in the original patent should evidence that applicant intended to claim or that applicant considered the material now claimed to be his or her invention. As described below, the original patent fails to provide sufficient written description support for new claims 20, 22-23, 26, 28, 32, 41 and 43-46. New claim 20 recites a chopping blade “extending upwards towards the open space inside the hopper.” The original patent fails to provide sufficient written description support for any upward extension as presented in new claim 20, and appears to only provide support for upward extension “in a spiral form.” The omission of the phrase “in a spiral form” results in a claim that is directed toward an invention that was not disclosed in the original patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - New Matter
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 20, 22-23, 26, 28, 32, 41 and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought, as discussed in detail below in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20, 22-23, 26, 28, 32, 41 and 43-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 requires “a chopping blade extending upwards towards the open space inside the hopper.” Claim 20, and those claims dependent therefrom, are silent as to the upward extension of the blade as being in “a spiral form.” Applicant’s original disclosure does not provide support for an upward extension of the chopping blade in any form, which would encompass, for example, a straight upward extension of the chopping blade. Claims 22-23, 26, 28, 32, 41 and 43-46 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-50 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.
Independent claims 1 and 20 each recite the phrase “to form a shape of an ox horn.” This phrase is indefinite. It is not clear what constitutes “a shape of an ox horn.” Applicant’s specification recites “the chopping blade 226 is not formed in a plate shape, but is formed to a predetermined thickness, and the cross section becomes smaller as it goes upward, bent in a spiral and extends upward so it is formed in the shape of an ox horn” (patent ‘523, column 18, lines 15-20). Applicant’s specification further recites “the shape of extending spirally in the shape of an ox horn” (patent ‘523, column 18, lines 28-29). It is unclear if the phrase “a shape of an ox horn” is meant to encompass a form that is spiral or a form that is both spiral and has a cross section which becomes smaller as it moves to upward to an end. Clarification is required.
Claims 1, 20 and 21 each recite the phrase “for cutting a material for juice extraction beforehand” in line 2. It is not clear what is meant by the word “beforehand.” It appears Applicant is attempting to position the cutting part essentially upstream from the extraction part of the juice, however clarification is required.
Claims 1, 20 and 21 each recite the phrase “rotatable in the same axial direction as the rotation axis of the screw.” This phrase is not clear. It is not understood how something is rotatable “in the same axial direction.” It appears that Applicant intends to recite that the cutting part is connected the screw and is rotatable about the same axis and in the same direction as the screw. Clarification is required.
Claims 1, 20 and 21 each recite the phrase “from a center of the rotation” in line 8. The phrase “the rotation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears as if Applicant is referring to a center of the cutting part which is aligned with the rotation axis of the screw. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites the phrase “both protruding side surfaces” in line 2. This phrase lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the phrase “the inner side surface” in line 2. This phrase lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 37, line 2 recites the phrase “the bottom surface.” This phrase lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 38 recites the phrase “of a position where an end portion of the slicing blade is located” in line 9. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Clarification is required.
Claim 39 recites “the rear end” and “the bottom surface” in lines 6 and 7. These phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 40-42 each recite the phrase “the top end” in line 2. This phrase lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 44, line 2 recites the phrase “the bottom surface.” This phrase lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 45 recites the phrase “of a position where an end portion of the slicing blade is located” in line 9. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Clarification is required.
Claim 46 recites “the rear end” and “the bottom surface” in lines 6 and 7. These phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 48, line 2 recites the phrase “the bottom surface.” This phrase lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 49 recites the phrase “of a position where an end portion of the slicing blade is located” in line 9. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Clarification is required.
Claim 50 recites “the rear end” and “the bottom surface” in lines 6 and 7. These phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Each of the claims 39, 46 and 50 recite the phrase “inclined downward from outlet” in line 5. It is not clear if Applicant claiming that each of said one or more outlets is connected to an inclined surface. Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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(s) 1-2, 11-12, 16, 20-35 and 40-42 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN203789666U) in view of Ohashi (JP2001-333872A).
With respect to claims 1, 20 and 21, Chen discloses a juice extractor (Figure 1) comprising: a cutting part (17) for cutting a material for juice extraction beforehand by a rotation in a direction within a hopper (1)(11) above a screw (2), the cutting part (13)(17) being connected to the screw (2) and rotatable in the same axial direction as the rotation axis of the screw (2), wherein the cutting part is rotatably coupled at only one side (see Figure 2) on a lower end surface of the hopper (1)(11) so that an open space that is not interfered above the cutting part (17)(13) is formed inside the hopper (1)(11) and comprises: a chopping blade extending upwards (see portion of blade element (17) extending upwards and to the right from frame (13) as shown in Figure 2) towards the open space inside the hopper from a center of the rotation, at hole (14) and a slicing blade (see portion of blade element (17) extending outward and to the left from frame (13) as shown in Figure 2) extending opposite the chopping blade.
Chen does not disclose a chopping blade that extends upwards “in a spiral form,” as required by claims 1 and 21, a chopping blade that “becomes smaller towards a tip of the upper end part to form a shape of an ox horn,” as required by claims 1 and 20, or a slicing blade that “extends horizontally on the lower end surface of the hopper” as required by claims 1, 20 and 21.
Ohashi teaches a cutting part (4) for a food processor. The cutting part (4) includes a chopping blade (4b)(4c)(4d) that extends upwards in a spiral form towards an open space of a hopper from a center of rotation at base (4a), the chopping blade has a cross-section that becomes smaller towards a tip (4d) of the upper end part to form a shape of an ox-horn. The cutting part (4) further includes a slicing blade (50) extending horizontally on the lower end surface of the hopper. The slicing blade is parallel to a lower end surface of the hopper as shown in Figure 1. The cutting part and slicing blade are integrally formed as shown in Figure 4. The cutting part is detachably mounted to underlying driving structure at hub (40).
It would have been obvious to a POSA to replace the blade disclosed by Chen with the blade taught by Ohashi. Ohashi teaches how various shaped blades are preferred when processing different foods (for example, blade 4 is use for soybeans, while blade 61 is used for rice cakes). It would have been obvious to a POSA to experiment substitute one shaped blade for another shaped blade to achieve the expected result of moving the food product to be processed more efficiently through the system without overloading the mechanical components of the device.
With respect to claim 16, Chen further discloses a first inner protrusion (111) that is formed to protrude inwardly on an inner surface of the hopper (1)(111) and to support the material for juice interaction so as to interact with the chopping blade during a rotating of the cutting part.
With respect to claims 40-42, the screw (2) comprises a grip part (unlabeled), in the form of a protruding portion of the spiral, that protrudes in a horizontal direction from the top end of the screw body to grip the screw. This limitation is being interpreted broadly, as in any protruding portion can constitute a grip part to grip the screw.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN203789666U) in view of Ohashi (JP2001-333872A) in further view of Ehrle et al. (9,393,649). Chen in view of Ohashi reveal all claimed elements, as set forth above. Chen in view of Ohashi, however, does not show the cutting part formed with a dual structure (claim 5) or at least one protrusion, dent of penetrating hole on the core body (claim 6).
Ehrle teaches a machine blade for food processing. The blade is formed with a main body (10) formed of one material and a cutting body (20) formed of a second material covering an outer portion of the core body. The cutting body is attached to the core body at a joining line (26) which may be furnished with a groove (28).
It would have been obvious to a POSA to form the blade disclosed by Chen, as modified, with a dual structure of a core body and outer shell as taught by Erle. Such a blade construction extends the life of the blade (Ehrle, column 4, lines 4-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 13-15, 17-19, 36-39 and 43-50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under USC 251 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lui (CN-203633962-U) discloses a blade positioned upstream of a screw used in a juicer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/CATHERINE S WILLIAMS/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 The examiner notes that limitations added to original application claims for the purpose of making the claims allowable over an art rejection are surrender-generating limitations, whether the amendment was made by way of applicant’s amendment or by way of an examiner’s amendment with authorization by applicant, even when applicant has made no argument on the record that the limitations were added to obviate the rejection. See MPEP § 1412.02, subsection II.B.2(B).