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. 9,868,330 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 on September 27, 2024 lists 17 foreign patent documents and 2 non-patent literature documents. No copies of these references were provided.
See MPEP 1406. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (A) each foreign patent; (B) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed, other than US patents and US patent application publications unless required by the Office. If that reference was listed by the reissue applicant on a PTO/SB/08 form but a copy has not been provided, the examiner will line-through the reference to indicate that the reference has not been considered.
Status of Claims
Underlying patent 9,868,330 was subject to an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-5, 8, 10-15 and 17 in IPR2022-00278. A final written decision was entered July 5, 2023 determining all challenged claims unpatentable.
The instant reissue application includes claims 1-5, 8, 10-15 and 17 which were determined unpatentable.
MPEP 1449.01, subsection I.A. provides guidance addressing the situation where a reexamination certificate or PTAB trial certificate is to be issued for a patent, while a reissue application for the patent is pending and will not be merged with the reexamination or trial before the PTAB (i.e., a derivation proceeding, an inter partes review, a post-grant review, and a covered business method review).
As explained in MPEP 1449.01, subsection I.A.:
Any claim canceled by the reexamination certificate or PTAB trial certificate will be (i) treated the same way as a claim lost in litigation, and (ii) deemed as canceled. The remaining claims will be examined. Thus, patent claims 1-5, 8, 10-15 and 17 are deemed to be canceled. Remaining patented claims 6-7, 9, 16 and 18, in addition to claims 19-39 newly filed in this reissue application, are examined.
If the reissue application is subsequently allowed, the claims that were canceled by the PTAB trial certificate will be formally canceled in the reissue application by examiner’s amendment unless they have already been canceled by the applicant. Note: If applicant chooses to cancel claims 1-5, 8, 10-15 and 17 during prosecution of this reissue, those claims must be indicated as cancelled by including the status identifier (CANCELLED) and the entirety of the cancelled claims lined through indicating cancellation in a previous proceeding.
Generally, further prosecution will be limited to claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of trial certificated. Any claims added in the reissue application, which are equal in scope to claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate, or are broader than the scope of the canceled claims, will generally be deemed as surrendered. Such claims will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP 1412.02. Further, a rejection of such claims based on estoppel will be made. See MPEP 2308.03. Concerning the appropriateness of such recapture and estoppel rejections, see the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Morimoto, 18 USPQ2d 1540 (BPAI 1990). Thus, applicant is not permitted to acquire, through reissue, claimed subject matter that was surrendered via amendment or cancellation through the reexamination framework.
As an exception to the general rule explained above, claims that are broader than the scope of the claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate may be presented where:
(a) The broader claims in the reissue application can be patentable, despite the fact that the claims in the reexamination are not; and
(b) The broader claims in the reissue application could not have been presented in the reexamination proceeding.
Criterion (a) can occur if:
The broadened claims in the reissue application have an earlier effective filing date than those canceled by the reexamination certificate (as where the claims in the reissue application are supported by a parent application, and the reexamination claims are not).
The subject matter of the broadened claims in the reissue application can be sworn behind, and the more specific subject matter of the reexamination claims cannot be sworn behind.
Criterion (b) can occur if the claims in the reissue application are broader than all claims of the patent as it existed during reexamination (e.g., claims directed to a distinct invention).
What happened in the concluded reexamination proceeding must be taken into account by the examiner as to any new claims presented by the reissue application.
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 19-20, 23, 30-39 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 19-20, 23, 30-39 are 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 19 recites “in the first spring travel range, curvature of the leaf spring has a single inflection point between the central receiving region and the second end portion” in lines 2-4. Under the broadest reason interpretation, the word single is understood to mean “only one.”1 The phrase “inflection point” is understood as a point along the length of the leaf spring at which the curvature of the spring changes from concave upward to concave downward.2 Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to have sufficient support for this claim limitation. For example, Applicant’s Figure 1 appears to disclose a spring in an unloaded state (solid line depiction) with a single inflection point at transition portion (9), and the spring in a loaded state (dashed line depiction) with no inflection point, however nothing in the Figure supports a single inflection point throughout the first spring travel range between the central receiving region and the second end portion. Claim 20 is rejected by nature of its dependency on claim 19.
Claim 23 recites “the bendable portion extends at an upwardly from the second receiving device to the curved transition portion such that all of a lower side of the bendable portion being concave and all of an upper side of the bendable portion being convex and the transition portion extends from the spring portion to the bendable portion such that all of the lower side of the transition portion is concave and all of an upper side of the transition portion is convex” This limitation is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. The Figures disclose a cross section of the spring in Figure 3C with portions having various concavities and convexities on lower and upper sides. However, specifically defining which portion constitutes the bendable portion and which portion constitutes the curved transition portion as claimed is not supported in Applicant’s written description.
Claim 30 recites the transition and bendable portions each having a radius, wherein the radius of the transition portion is smaller than the radius of the bendable portion. This narrow definition of the transition and bendable portions is unsupported by Applicant’s written description. Despite the fact that Figures disclose such portions as claimed, limiting the transition portion and bendable portion in this manner is not supported.
Claim 31 recites “an underside of the central receiving region is arranged below a line through the first and second receiving device.” This limitation is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. The word “line”3 could constitute any shaped line, including but not limited to a straight line, a curved line, a sinusoidal line. Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure supports that the central receiving region is arranged below [any] line through the first and second receiving device.
Claim 32 recites the leaf spring “is a mono-leaf spring having only one spring leaf continuously extending from the first end portion to the second end portion.” While Applicant’s Figures depicts spring (3) as a unitary element nothing in the disclosure supports that the element represents a mono-leaf as claimed.
Claim 33 recites that “in the second spring travel range, the leaf spring is loaded exclusively in tension at every point along its length from the first end portion to the second end portion.” Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure supports this limitation.
Claim 34 recites “no sections of the leaf spring vertically overlap within each other.” This phrase would assume that the spring element (3) is unitary and mono-leaf and as set forth above, nothing in Applicant’s disclosure requires the spring element (3) to be unitary or mono-leaf.
Claims 35 recites initial rotation of the bendable portion and the second end portion in a first direction and then in an opposite second direction. Applicant’s written description does not support this this claimed pivotal f pivotal movement.
Claim 36 recites “the bendable portion extends at an upward angle from the second receiving device to the transition portion with all of a lower side of the bendable portion being concave and all of an upper side of the bendable portion being convex.” This limitation is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. The Figures disclose a cross section of the spring in Figure 3C with a bendable portion having a lower side that extends in along a concave path and an upper side that extends along a convex path. However, specifically defining which portion constitutes the bendable portion and which portion constitutes the curved transition portion as claimed is not supported in Applicant’s written description.
Claim 37 recites that “all of the bendable portion is above the pivot axis.” The limitation is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Such a narrow definition of the bendable portion was not described in the written description.
Claims 38 recites initial rotation of the bendable portion and the second end portion in a first direction and then in an opposite second direction. Applicant’s written description does not support this sort of pivotal movement.
Claim 39 recites “the first receiving device, and the second receiving device are designed to solely counteract all vertical forces that are introduces from the wheel carrier for an entire spring travel that is possible in the installed state on the vehicle.” Applicant’s disclosure lacks support for this limitation. It is not clear what would make the first and second receiving device capable of counteracting “all vertical forces” for “an entire spring travel possible.”
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 6-7, 9, 16 and 18-39 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, the subject matter of which is included in dependent claims 6-7, 9, 16 and 18, recites “wherein in the installed state of the leaf spring the first end portion and the spring portion extending therefrom are positioned towards a front end of the motor vehicle, and the second end portion and the bendable portion extending therefrom are positioned towards a rear end of the motor vehicle.” This phrase positively positions portions of the spring with respect to ends of the motor vehicle however the claim is drawn to the spring alone and not the spring in combination with a motor vehicle. Positively located the spring with respect to the motor vehicle makes it unclear as to if Applicant intends to claim the spring alone or the spring in combination with the motor vehicle. Clarification is required.
Claims 19-21 are similarly rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Independent claims 22 and 36 include similar limitations positively locating the claimed spring with respect to the motor vehicle. Claims 23-25 and 37-39 are rejected as being dependent upon claims 22 and 36.
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) 6, 9, 19-20, 22-31, 33 and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being anticipated by Enomoto (JP3872719).
With respect to claim 6, Enomoto discloses a leaf spring assembly for a wheel suspension of a motor vehicle (see Figure 1) comprising: a leaf spring (25) for resiliently supporting a wheel carrier (2) of the motor vehicle. The leaf spring (3) comprising a first end portion at eye (13), a spring portion comprised of at least element (25a) extending from the first end portion, a second end portion at eye (18), a bendable portion, comprised of at least a portion of (25B) extending from the second end portion, wherein the spring portion extends substantially in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (generally parallel to frame element (1)) in an installed state and is configured to accommodate the wheel carrier (2), wherein the spring portion and the bendable portion are connected to each other by a curved transition portion, comprised of another portion of (25B) and wherein the spring portion is longer than the bendable portion; a first receiving device (6)(7) for supporting the first end portion (13); a second receiving device (8)(9) for supporting the second end portion (18); wherein the first receiving device and the second receiving device are provided as to hold the first end portion and the second end portion in a non-displaceable way relative to one another, wherein the leaf spring (3), with an increasing load due to vertical forces introduced from the wheel carrier (2), is increasingly subjected to tensile loading given the shape of the leaf spring and the fixed nature of the leaf spring ends; further wherein at least one of the first and second receiving devices provides pivotable support, given that the eyes (13) and (18) are capable of pivoting about the pins (7) and (9) on which they are mounted, to the associated one of the first end portion (13) and the second end portion (18) around a pivot axis extending transversely to longitudinal axis of the vehicle; and further wherein in the installed state of the leaf spring, the first end portion and the spring portion extending therefrom are positioned towards a front end of the motor vehicle, the second end portion and the bendable portion extending therefrom are positioned towards a rear end of the motor vehicle (see translation), wherein one of the first and second receiving devices provides support to the associated one of the first and second end portion in a moment-resistant way given that when a longitudinal load acts on the vehicle, the “majority of the load is absorbed by the leaf spring 25 flexing, and a small portion of the load is absorbed by the bushings 14, 19 being deformed. The longitudinal load is transmitted to the chassis frame from the eyes 13, 18 formed on the front and back sections of the leaf spring 25 and via bushings 14, 19 and the horizontal pins 7, 9” (Enomoto translation, paragraph [0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Enomoto, Figure 3 with Examiner annotations
Enomoto fails to expressly disclose any particular material for forming the leaf spring. The usage of fiber-reinforced plastics as a substitution for metal leaf springs is well known given that such materials are lighter in weight and more cost effective making use of such materials obvious to try to a POSITA.
With respect to claim 9, at least one of the first receiving device and the second receiving device comprises a stop which limits a pivot movement of the leaf spring about the pivot axis. The stop being formed by the shape of the pin which enables the spring to pivot about the pin to a particular extent before forces are transmitted to the bushing supporting the eye on the pin and then to the chassis frame.
With respect to claim 19, the spring portion comprises a central receiving region designed to receive the wheel carrier (2), and wherein, in the first spring travel range, curvature of the leaf spring has a single inflection point (where concavity of the spring changes from concave up to concave down) between the central receiving region and the second end portion.
With respect to claim 20, the single inflection point is at the curved transition portion (see above).
With respect to claim 22, wherein the leaf spring is designed such that when there is an increasing load due to vertical forces introduced from the wheel carrier on the leaf spring in the installed state on the vehicle, the leaf spring is increasingly subjected to tensile loading between the first and second receiving devices when in the installed state on the vehicle. This increasing tensile loading is a result of the leaf spring shape and the fixed ends of the leaf spring and would be understood by a POSITA.
With respect to claim 23, wherein when the leaf spring is unloaded (as depicted in the Figure 3 above), the bendable portion extends upwardly from the second receiving device to the curved transition portion such that all of a lower side of the bendable portion is concave and all of an upper side of the bendable portion is convex and the transition portion extends from the spring portion to the bendable portion such that all of a lower side of the transition portion is concave and all of an upper side of the transition portion is convex. The border between the transition portion and the bendable portion corresponding to a point at which the curve reaches a maximum height.
With respect to claim 24, the leaf spring is designed to have a first spring travel range in which a lower side of the spring portion is convex and an upper side of the spring portion is concave (note that the Figure 3 above shows the spring in the first spring travel range) and a second travel range in which the lower side is concave and the upper side is convex (not depicted), wherein the leaf spring is designed to transition from the first spring travel range to the second spring travel range with the increasing load due to vertical forces introduced from the wheel carrier such that while in the installed state the leaf spring changes from pressure loading in the first spring travel range to tensile loading in the second spring travel range. The spring disclosed by Enomoto is capable of performing the claimed function by nature of it being a “leaf spring” as a POSITA would understand.
With respect to claim 25, the leaf spring is designed to have a neutral position between the first and second spring travel ranges wherein the neutral position is substantially free of tensile and compressive loading, given leaf springs are understood to a POSITA to have such a neutral position when both ends of such a spring are constrained from relative displacement.
With respect to claim 26, wherein in the first spring travel range (as depicted in the annotated Figure above), a lower side of the bendable portion is concave and an upper side of the bendable portion is convex.
With respect to claim 27, in the first spring travel range a lower side of transition portion is concave and an upper side of the transition portion is convex.
With respect to claim 28, in the second spring travel range (not depicted) the lower side of the bendable portion is concave and the upper side of the bendable portion is convex, given the location of the inflection point being positioned between the spring portion and the fixed second end.
With respect to claim 29, in the first spring travel range, the transition portion has a first radius and the bendable portion has a second radius and center points of the first and second radii are located below the lower sides of the transition and bendable portions respectively.
With respect to claim 30, the transition portion has a first radius and the bendable portion has a second radius, the first radius being smaller than the second radius given that the transition portion comprises a tighter curve than the bendable portion as shown above. The center points of each of the radii are located below the lower sides of the transition portion and the bendable portion.
With respect to claim 31, the spring portion comprises a central receiving region designed to receive the wheel carrier wherein an unloaded installed state on the vehicle an underside of the central receiving region is below a line through the first and second receiving device (as shown in Figure 3) and in a loaded state installed on the vehicle the underside of the central receiving region is capable of being arranged above the line through the first and second receiving device. The leaf spring is capable of performing this function because a POSITA understands a leaf spring with fixed ends to transition from compression to tension, with the tensile load increasing as spring deflects further upward. The upward deflection capable of resulting in a central receiving portion positioned above the line arranged through the first and second receiving devices.
With respect to claim 33, there is a point of deflection of the spring in which the spring is loaded exclusively in tension at every point along its length, wherein additional deflection results in elongation of the leaf spring along its length from the first end portion to the second end portion. A POSITA recognizes a leaf spring to function in this manner.
With respect to claim 35, the leaf spring is designed such that during transition from the first spring travel range the second end portion will initially rotate in a clockwise direction while the bendable portion gets steeper and then will rotate in a second opposite counterclockwise direction and the bendable portion gets shallower.
With respect to claim 36, wherein the leaf spring with an increasing load due to vertical forces introduced from the wheel carrier is increasingly subjected to tensile loading between the first and second receiving devices when in the installed state on the vehicle. This increasing tensile loading is a result of the leaf spring shape and the fixed ends of the leaf spring and features of a leaf spring well known to POSITA. Further, when the leaf spring is in the installed state on the vehicle, the bendable portion extends at an upward angle from the second receiving device to the transition portion with all of a lower side of the bendable portion being concave and all of an upper side of the bendable portion being convex as shown in the annotated Figure above.
With respect to claim 37, the second receiving device defines the pivot axis at the center of pin (9) and the bendable portion extends upwardly from the second receiving device such that all of the bendable portion is above the pivot axis.
With respect to claim 38, the leaf spring is designed such that during transition from the first spring travel range the second end portion will initially rotate in a clockwise direction while the bendable portion gets steeper and the spring is in compression and then will rotate in a second opposite counterclockwise direction and the bendable portion gets shallower and the spring is in tension.
With respect to claim 39, as best understood, the leaf spring and the first and second receiving devices are designed to solely counteract all vertical forces introduced from the wheel carrier for an entire spring travel that is possible in the installed state on the vehicle given that first the load is absorbed by the spring, a small portion of the load is absorbed by bushings at the first and second receiving members being deformed and then the load is transmitted via the pins at the first and second receiving devices to the chassis frame (see Enomoto translation paragraph [0049]).
Claim 21 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (JP3872719) in view of Pfletschinger (JP2000-18299A). As set forth above, Enomoto discloses or makes all claimed elements obvious the with the exception of fiber-reinforced plastics that include unidirectional, pre-impregnated fibers arranged in layers.
Pfletschinger teaches the use of layers of unidirectional, pre-impregnated fibers arranged in layers (see English Summary of Invention, paragraphs 5 and 6) to obtain a light weight and inexpensive leaf spring.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the material taught by Pfletschinger to form the leaf spring disclosed by Enomoto since such a material is disclosed an inexpensive and very light.
Claims 32 and 34 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (JP3872719) in view of Greco (6,435,485). As set forth above, Enomoto discloses or makes all claimed elements obvious the with the exception of the leaf spring being a mono-leaf spring with only one spring leaf extending from the first and portion to the second end portion.
Greco teaches a composite mono-leaf spring for use in a vehicle suspension system. Such a spring has no section of leaf spring that overlap vertically within each other.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to form spring sections (25A) and (25B) disclosed by Enomoto in one single unitary piece as taught by Greco since a mono-leaf construction would reduce production complexity removing the need to attach two separate elements (25A) and (25B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 16, 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 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: Wilson (US 5938221).
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:
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 Merriam-Webster defines single as “consisting of or having only one, part, feature or portion.”
2 Merriam-Webster defines inflection point as “a point on a curve that separates an arc concave upward from one concave downward and vice versa.”
3 Merriam-Webster defines line as “a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by a moving point and that has extension only along the path of the point.”
Prosecution Insights