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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/24/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the shaft center of the head" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Be advised that Applicant previously set forth, “a shaft center of the shaft part” in line 8 of claim 1 not “a shaft center of a head.”
Lines 12-13 of claim 1 state, “the third flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular third flow paths of the “plurality of third paths” of line 10 of claim 1 that “the third flow paths” of lines 12-13 of claim 1 is intended to reference.
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 state, “wherein a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flow paths, and the number of the second flow paths is greater than one.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “a number of the third flow paths” is intended to refer to, for example, a total number of third flow paths that make up the “plurality of third flow paths” (wherein the “plurality of third flow paths” were set forth in line 10 of claim 1), or if instead, “a number of the third flow paths” is intended to refer to, for example, a subset of the “plurality of third paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if “a number of the second flow paths” is intended to refer to, for example, a total number of second flow paths that make up the “plurality of second flow paths” (wherein the “plurality of second flow paths” were set forth in line 12 of claim 1), or if instead, “a number of the second flow paths” is intended to refer to, for example, a subset of the “plurality of second paths.”
Lines 1-2 of claim 2 state, “the second flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular second flow paths of the “plurality of second paths” of line 12 of claim 1 that “the second flow paths” is intended to reference.
Line 2 of claim 3 and line 3 of claim 3 each state, “the second flow paths.” Each recitation of this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular second flow paths of the “plurality of second paths” of line 12 of claim 1 that “the second flow paths” is intended to reference.
Line 4 of claim 3 states, “the third flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular third flow paths of the “plurality of third paths” of line 10 of claim 1 that “the third flow paths” is intended to reference.
Line 2 of claim 6 states, “the third flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular third flow paths of the “plurality of third paths” of line 10 of claim 1 that “the third flow paths” is intended to reference.
Lines 2-3 of claim 6 state, “the third flow paths include at least a third main flow path and a third sub flow path.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if each of “the third flow paths" of line 2 of claim 6 includes a respective “at least a third main flow path and a third sub flow path,” or if instead “the third flow paths” of line 2 of claim 6 as a collective include “at least a third main flow path and a third sub flow path.”
Line 3 of claim 6, line 5 of claim 6, and line 6 of claim 6 each state, “the second flow paths.” Each recitation of this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular second flow paths of the “plurality of second paths” of line 12 of claim 1 that “the second flow paths” is intended to reference.
Lines 1-2 of claim 7 state, “the third flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular third flow paths of the “plurality of third paths” of line 10 of claim 1 that “the third flow paths” is intended to reference.
Lines 1-2 of claim 7 state, “the third flow paths include pairs branching from the respective second flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if each of “the third flow paths" of lines 1-2 of claim 7 includes respective “pairs branching from the respective second flow paths,” or if instead “the third flow paths” of lines 1-2 of claim 7 as a collective include “pairs branching from the respective second flow paths.” This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular second flow paths of the “plurality of second paths” of line 12 of claim 1 that “the respective second flow paths” of line 2 of claim 7 is intended to reference.
Line 2 of claim 8 states, “the second flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular second flow paths of the “plurality of second paths” of line 12 of claim 1 that “the second flow paths” is intended to reference.
Lines 1-2 of claim 9 state, “the third flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular third flow paths of the “plurality of third paths” of line 10 of claim 1 that “the third flow paths” is intended to reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Publication No. JP H02-004714 U (hereinafter JP '714).
Please be advised that JP '714 was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 9/19/2024.
Please also be advised that a machine translation of JP '714 is relied upon below, and this machine translation was previously furnished with the office action mailed on 7/24/2026.
Claim 1: Figures 1-2 of JP '714 show a fastening component (5) that is fastened to an arbor (2) so as to fix a rotary cutting tool (1) to the arbor (2).
Figures 1-2 of JP '714 show the fastening component (5) as comprising a shaft part (7a) that is screwed into an internal thread (15) of the arbor (2), a head (7b) which is formed at an end of the shaft part (7a) opposite to an end of the shaft part (7a) fastened to the arbor (2), and an engagement hole (13) formed in a shaft center on a top surface of the head (7b).
Next, as can best be seen in Figure 2 of JP '714, the fastening component (5) further comprises a first flow path (10) formed in a shaft center of the shaft part (7a) and opened in an end surface of the shaft part (7a) fastened to the arbor (2).
The fastening component (5) further comprises a plurality of third flow paths opened, in a position that is away from a shaft center of the head. Please be advised that the plurality of third flow paths comprises a total number of nine third flow paths, which includes eight radial injection paths/passages (11) and one annular flow path/passage. For Applicant’s reference, the one annular flow path has been pointed to below in each of annotated Figures 2 and 3 of JP '714.
PNG
media_image1.png
853
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The fastening component (5) further comprises a plurality of second flow paths, which are inclined paths/passages. Two exemplary second flow paths of the plurality of second flow paths have been pointed to above in annotated Figure 2 of JP '714. Please be advised that the plurality of second flow paths connect the first flow path and the plurality of third flow paths.
Also, “a number of third flow paths,” e.g. the total number of third flow paths is greater than “a number of second flow paths,” e.g. a total number of second flow paths. It is reiterated that the plurality of third flow paths comprises nine third flow paths, the nine third flow paths including the eight radial injection paths/passages (11) and the one annular flow path/passage. Noting this, the total number of second flow paths is equal to eight. This can be determined since the second flow paths (inclined passages) and the eight radial injection paths/passages (11) (wherein all eight radial injection paths/passages (11) can be seen within Figure 3 of JP '714) of the plurality of third flow paths are provided on a one-to-one basis. (On page 8 of Applicant’s Arguments that were filed on 8/24/2026, Applicant stated in lines 1-2 thereof that, “Accordingly, in JP '714, the second flow paths (inclined passages) and the third flow paths (radial passages) are connected on a one-to-one basis”).
Noting the above, since the nine third flow paths include the eight radial injection paths/ passages (11) and the one annular flow path/passage, the number, e.g. the total number (=9), of third flow paths is greater than the number, e.g. the total number (=8), of second flow paths. Based on the foregoing, because there are eight second flow paths, “the number of second flow paths is greater than one.”
Additionally/Alternatively, as broadly claimed, “a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flows, and the number of the second flow paths is greater than one.” Please be advised that on lines 14-15 of claim 1, there isn’t any requirement set forth by Applicant for the claimed “number of third flow paths” to be equal to, for example, a total number of third flow paths. Likewise, please be advised that on lines 14-15 of claim 1, there isn’t any requirement set forth by Applicant for the claimed “number of second flow paths” to be equal to, for example, a total number of second flow paths. Noting this, as it pertains to JP '714, a selected subset of the third flow paths, e.g. four third flow paths for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of the third flow paths.” Also, as it pertains to JP '714, a selected subset of the second flow paths, e.g. two second flow paths for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of the second flow paths.” As such, the selected number (=4) of the third flow paths is greater than the selected number (=2) of the second flow paths, and the selected number (=2) of the second flow paths is greater than one.
Claim 2: As can best be seen in Figure 2 of JP '714, the plurality of second flow paths are formed in a position that is nearest to the engagement hole (13).
Claim 5: The rejection of claim 5 corresponds to the interpretation of JP '714 in which the selected subset of four third flow paths, for example, is considered to correspond to the “number” of third flow paths, and the selected subset of two second flow paths, for example, is considered to correspond to the “number” of second flow paths. Noting this, both the number (=2) of the second flow paths and the number (=4) of the third flow paths is an even number.
Claim 8: Since each second flow path of the plurality of second flow paths is formed as a cylindrical path/passage and therefore has a curved/round cross-section, at least a part of each second flow path “has a curved shape.”
Claim 9: Via the eight radial injection paths/passages (11) thereof, the plurality of third flow paths are opened in a side surface of the head (7b). This can best be seen within Figures 1-2 of JP '714.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Publication No. JP 4349824 B2 (hereinafter JP '824) in view of Sato (Japan Publication No. 06031579 A).
Please be advised that JP '824 was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 mailed on 7/24/2026.
Please also be advised that an EPO machine translation of JP '824 is relied upon below, and this machine translation was previously furnished with the office action mailed on 7/24/2026.
Please be advised that Sato was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 mailed on 7/24/2026.
Please also be advised that an EPO machine translation of Sato is relied upon below, and this EPO machine translation has been furnished with this office action.
Claim 1: Figures 7-8 of JP '824 show a fastening component (101), wherein this fastening component (101) is fastened to an arbor (10) (shown in Figure 2 of JP '824) so as to fix a rotary cutting tool (20) (shown in Figure 3 of JP '824) to the arbor (10).
Figures 7-8 of JP '824 show the fastening component (101) as comprising a shaft part/ male thread portion (2) screwed into an internal thread (15) of the arbor (10) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0007], and a head (3) formed at an end of the shaft part (2) opposite to an end of the shaft part (2) fastened to the arbor (10).
Figures 7-8 of JP '824 further show an engagement hole (8) formed in a shaft center on a top surface of the head (3).
As can also be seen in Figures 7-8, a first flow path (5) is formed in a shaft center of the shaft part (2) and opened in an end surface of the shaft part (2) fastened to the arbor (10). The fastening component (101) further comprises a plurality of second flow paths (6) that are connected to the first flow path (5).
JP '824 though, does not disclose the fastening component (101) as further comprising “a plurality of third flow paths opened, in a position away from the shaft center of the head.” Please be advised that the rotary cutting tool (20) of JP '824 is shown in Figure 3 as having five cutting tips (25) that are angularly separated from one another.
Figure 2 of Sato though, shows a plurality of second flow paths (15), at a respective distal end of each second flow path (15) is connected a corresponding pair of third flow paths (16, 17). Please note that a first one of the pair of third flow paths (16) discharges high-pressure liquid toward a cutting edge sliding surface (13a) of a first cutter tip (13), and a second one of the pair of third flow paths (16) discharges high-pressure liquid toward a cutting edge relief surface (13b) of a neighboring second cutting tip (13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each second flow path (6) of the plurality of second flow paths (6) of JP '824 with a corresponding pair of third flow paths (16, 17) of Sato, so as to provide the fastening component (101) of JP '824 with the advantage of discharging, by way of each pair of provided third flow paths (16, 17) of Sato, high-pressure liquid toward the respective cutting edge sliding surface of each cutting tip (25) of JP '824 and also discharging high-pressure liquid toward the respective cutting edge relief surface of each cutting tip (25) of JP '824.
In making this modification, a distal end of each second flow path (6) of the plurality of second flow paths (6) of JP '824 connects to a corresponding pair of third flow paths (16, 17) of Sato. Thus, the plurality of second flow paths (6) connects the first flow path (5) and the plurality of third flow paths (16, 17). Due to each corresponding pair of third flow paths (16, 17) of Sato connecting to the respective distal end of one of the plurality of second flow paths (6), the plurality of third flow paths (16, 17) are opened in a side surface of the head (3) in a position that is away from the shaft center of the head (3).
Next, please be advised that the modified fastening component (101) comprises one first flow path (5) and five second flow paths (6). Therefore, a number, e.g. a total number (=5), of second flow paths (6) is “greater than one.”
Moreover, because each singular second flow path (6) connects into a corresponding pair of third flow paths (16, 17), there are two times (2x) more total third flow paths (16, 17) provided than second flow paths (6). Based on the foregoing, a number, e.g. a total number (=10), of third flow paths (16, 17) is greater than a number, e.g. a total number (=5), of second flow paths (6).
Additionally/Alternatively, as broadly claimed, “a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flows, and the number of the second flow paths is greater than one.” Please be advised that on lines 14-15 of claim 1, there isn’t any requirement set forth by Applicant for the claimed “number of third flow paths” to be equal to, for example, a total number of third flow paths. Likewise, please be advised that on lines 14-15 of claim 1, there isn’t any requirement set forth by Applicant for the claimed “number of second flow paths” to be equal to, for example, a total number of second flow paths.
Noting the above, as it pertains to the modified fastening component (101) of JP '824, a selected subset of the third flow paths (16, 17), e.g. eight third flow paths (16, 17) for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of the third flow paths.” Also, as it pertains to the modified fastening component (101) of JP '824, a selected subset of the second flow paths (6), e.g. four second slow paths (6) for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of second flow paths.” As such, the selected number (=8) of the third flow paths (16, 17) is greater than the selected number (=4) of the second flow paths (6), and the selected number (=4) of the second flow paths (6) is greater than one.
Claim 2: As can best be seen in Figure 7 of JP '824, the plurality of second flow paths (6) are formed in a position that is nearest to the engagement hole (8).
Claim 3: As can best be seen in Figure 7 of JP '824, the first flow path (5) has a cross-sectional area that is greater than that of each of the plurality of second flow paths (6).
JP '824/Sato though, does not provide disclosure on, “each of the second flow paths [6] has a cross-sectional area that is greater than that of each of the third flow paths [16, 17].” It is noted; however, that each respective third flow path (16, 17) provides for high-pressure liquid discharge [EPO Machine Translation of Sato, paragraph 0009].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause each of the second flow paths (6) in the modified fastening component (101) of JP '824 to have a cross-sectional area that is greater than that of each of the third flow paths (16, 17) of said modified fastening component (101), since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the modified fastening component (101) would not operate differently with the cross-sectional area of each second flow path (6) being greater than that of each of the third flow paths (16, 17), because with fluid/liquid flowing from the larger cross-section of each second flow path (6) into the smaller cross-section of each third flow path (16, 17), the fluid/liquid would still be discharged at a high-pressure.
Claim 5: The rejection of claim 5 corresponds to the interpretation of JP '824/Sato in which the selected subset of the third flow paths (16, 17), e.g. eight third flow paths (16, 17) for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of the third flow paths,” and the selected subset of the second flow paths (6), e.g. four second slow paths (6) for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of second flow paths.” Noting this, both the number (=4) of the second flow paths (6) and the number (=8) of the third flow paths (16, 17) is an even number.
Claim 8: Since each second flow path (6) of the plurality of second flow paths (6) is formed as a cylindrical path/passage and therefore has a curved/round cross-section, at least a part of each second flow path (6) “has a curved shape.”
Claim 9: In the modified fastening component (101) of JP '824, the plurality of third flow paths (16, 17) are opened in the side surface of the head (3) in a position that is away from the shaft center of the head (3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and the prior art, Applicant argues the following:
Amended independent claim 1 recites, among other things, "wherein a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flow paths, and the number of the second flow paths is greater than one" (emphasis added).
In the rejection of original claim 4, the Office Action asserts that, based on FIGS. 1 to 3 of JP '714, JP '714 discloses at least eight third flow paths 11 and at least two second flow paths, i.e., two inclined passages connecting the first flow path 10 and the third flow paths 11.
Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action appears to have mistakenly regarded reference numeral 12 as an "annular flow passage portion" constituting part of the flow path, and therefore concluded that cutting fluid can be delivered to the eight third flow paths 11 (radial passages) through the two second flow paths (inclined passages) via the annular flow passage portion.
In this regard, Applicant submits that this interpretation is incorrect, as reference numeral 12 actually represents a "packing (seal member)" for ensuring the fluid-tight sealing of the cutting fluid.
Accordingly, in JP '714, the second flow paths (inclined passages) and the third flow paths (radial passages) are connected on a one-to-one basis, such that the number of the second flow paths is equal to the number of the third flow paths. Therefore, JP '714 fails to disclose the limitation "wherein a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flow paths," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Koik fails to remedy the deficiency of JP '714.
Since JP '714 does not describe all the features of amended independent claim 1, either explicitly or inherently, an anticipation rejection cannot be maintained. In addition, for at least the above reasons, the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features recited in amended independent claim 1. Thus, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 is allowable. Applicant further submits that dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on amended independent claim 1, and for the additional features recited. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive.
In the above argument, Applicant states the following: “Accordingly, in JP '714, the second flow paths (inclined passages) and the third flow paths (radial passages) are connected on a one-to-one basis.” Bearing this in mind, as can be seen within Figure 3 of JP '714, there are eight radial injection paths/passages (11). Due to the “one-to-one basis” relationship between the “inclined passages” and the “radial passages,” this means there are eight “inclined passages.”
Noting the above, a first interpretation of JP '714 will now be presented by Examiner.
The fastening component (5) of JP '714 comprises a plurality of second flow paths, which correspond to the aforesaid inclined paths/passages. Two exemplary second flow paths of the plurality of second flow paths are shown below in annotated Figure 2 of JP '714. Please be advised that the plurality of second flow paths connect the first flow path and a plurality of third flow paths.
As it pertains to the plurality of third flow paths, the fastening component (5) further comprises a plurality of third flow paths opened, in a position that is away from a shaft center of the head. Please be advised that the plurality of third flow paths comprises a total number of nine third flow paths, which include the aforesaid eight radial injection paths/passages (11) and which further include one annular flow path/passage. For Applicant’s reference, the one annular flow path has been pointed to below in each of annotated Figures 2 and 3 of JP '714.
PNG
media_image1.png
853
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, “a number of third flow paths,” e.g. the total number of third flow paths is greater than “a number of second flow paths,” e.g. a total number of second flow paths. It is reiterated that the plurality of third flow paths comprises nine third flow paths, the nine third flow paths including the eight radial injection paths/passages (11) and the one annular flow path/passage. Noting this, the total number of second flow paths is equal to eight. Since each second flow path corresponds to one of the aforesaid inclined paths/passages, there are eight second flow paths. It is reiterated that due to the “one-to-one basis” relationship that Applicant argued above between the “inclined passages” and the “radial passages,” this means there are eight inclined passages/ second flow paths. Since the nine third flow paths include the eight radial injection paths/ passages (11) and the one annular flow path/passage, the number, e.g. the total number (=9), of third flow paths is greater than the number, e.g. the total number (=8), of second flow paths. Also, as there are eight second flow paths, “the number of second flow paths is greater than one.”
Thus, in contrast to what Applicant argues, this first interpretation of JP '714 shows that JP '714 does indeed teach, “wherein a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flow paths.”
Next, a second interpretation of JP '714 will now be presented by Examiner.
As broadly claimed, “a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flows, and the number of the second flow paths is greater than one.” Please be advised that on lines 14-15 of claim 1, there isn’t any requirement set forth by Applicant for the claimed “number of third flow paths” to be equal to, for example, a total number of third flow paths. Likewise, please be advised that on lines 14-15 of claim 1, there isn’t any requirement set forth by Applicant for the claimed “number of second flow paths” to be equal to, for example, a total number of second flow paths. Noting this, as it pertains to JP '714, a selected subset of the third flow paths, e.g. four third flow paths for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of the third flow paths.” Also, as it pertains to JP '714, a selected subset of the second flow paths, e.g. two second flow paths for instance, is considered to correspond to the claimed “number of the second flow paths.” As such, the selected number (=4) of the third flow paths is greater than the selected number (=2) of the second flow paths, and the selected number (=2) of the second flow paths is greater than one.
This second interpretation of JP '714 is further demonstration that JP '714 teaches, “wherein a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flow paths.”
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Figure 3 of Hoffer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,573,098 B2) shows therein a fastening component (70) having a shaft part (77) that screws into an internal thread (56) of an arbor (40), and a head (76) formed at an end of the shaft part (77) opposite to and end of the shaft part (77) fastened to the arbor (40). Figure 3 further shows an engagement hole formed in a shaft center on a top surface of the head (76). Please be advised that the fastening component (70) further comprises a first flow path (100) and a plurality of second flow paths (80).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
