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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claimed filed on May 11, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 – 9, 13, 15 – 16 and 18 are amended. Claims 4 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 19 are pending and under examination. The amendment overcomes the rejection to claims 15 – 19 under 35 USC § 112(b) previously presented in the Non-Final Office action mailed on February 10, 2026. Therefore, said rejections are hereby withdrawn. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1, of record) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1, of record), and further in view of MORGAN REFRACTORIES LIMITED (GB 1558475 A, “Morgan”).
Regarding claim 1, Gronquist teaches a field joint mold assembly comprising:
a mold body (clamp band “B” or strap/band 52, with sleeve “C”, FIG. 6, [0042]-[0043]) configured to be disposed on a field joint section (weld joint 18, FIG. 1) of a pipe assembly (pipeline “P”) such that the mold body defines a mold cavity (gap “G”, FIG. 1) around the field joint section (gap “G” with weld joint 18, FIG. 1, [0020]-[0026] e.g., “When the cylindrical sleeve C is in place, an annulus or cylindrical space is formed within the interior of the sleeve C about the exposed pipe sections 10 and 12 adjacent the weld joint 18.” [0025], “The material of the strap or band 52 distributes heat from the flame spraying over the full outer surface of the cladding or cover sleeve C to reduce localization of heated areas or hot spots.” [0043]); and
a heating system (electrically conductive element “E”) mounted on the mold body and capable of uniformly heating the mold body to an elevated temperature to promote even elevated temperature distribution inside the mold cavity [0027]-[0037];
wherein the heating system comprises a heating pad disposed around the mold body for conducting heat to the mold body (e.g., [0027] “sheet has an electrically conductive element E mounted or integrally formed therewith prior to being formed into the cylindrical sleeve C.”).
Gronquist does not specifically disclose, an injection port opening through the mold body such that curable insulation material can be imparted through the injection port into the mold cavity, retention bars mounted on the mold body at circumferentially spaced apart locations and holding the heating pad against the mold body, at least four circumferentially adjacent retention bars being spaced apart less than 90 degrees.
Gronquist, however, discloses that “The annulus is preferably filled such as by pouring, injection or the like with a chemical composition such as a suitable synthetic resin, in the form of a polyurethane or epoxy which sets or hardens in the annulus to form a HDPE or other hard synthetic resin infill” [0026], and that “a suitably located injection port is drilled or otherwise formed in the sleeve C. A solid polyurethane-forming material is then pumped or poured into the annulus until the volume of the annulus is full.” [0038].
Hoffmann, in the same field of endeavor of apparatus and techniques for coating pipeline field joints and to pipelines having field joints coated by those techniques [0001], teaches a mould tool 32 capable of being “fixed around the field joint, extending from one coating 38 to the other and overlapping those coatings 38 to define a mould cavity 40 including the annular gap between the coatings 38, into which molten thermoplastics material such as PP is injected as a field joint coating” [0084]-[0086]. Hoffmann discloses that the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 is pierced by an array of gates 56 [analogous to the claimed “injection port opening”], “for injection into the mould cavity 40 of molten PP 58 supplied through feed lines 60 under pressure from a supplying reservoir or machine 62.” each gate 56 (controlled by a central control unit 66, which may operate them independently of each other) has a respective valve 64 that controls the injection of molten PP 58 through that gate 56 (FIG. 3, [0088]), and a vent 67 at an upstream end of the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 that allows air to escape as the mould cavity 40 fills with molten PP 58. [0089], [0095].
Hoffmann discloses that this arrangement and sequential injection moulding operation “enables lower moulding pressure and hence lower clamping force as the viscous melt need only travel the short distance between the gates 56 rather than traversing the mould cavity 40 as a whole.” [0102].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the mold body (e.g., Gronquist clamp band “B” with sleeve “C”) in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist, with an injection port opening (e.g., Hoffmann array of gates 56) through the mold body such that curable insulation material can be imparted through the injection port into the mold cavity, as suggested by the prior art of Hoffmann, and recognize the modification does no more than yield predictable results and resulted in an improved field joint mold assembly, e.g., a field joint mold assembly capable of injecting molten curable insulating materials into the mold cavity, as taught by Hoffmann (see MPEP 2143 (I) (D)), since Hoffmann teaches that by providing said array of gates “enables lower moulding pressure and hence lower clamping force as the viscous melt need only travel the short distance between the gates 56 rather than traversing the mould cavity 40 as a whole.” Hoffmann [0102]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Morgan teaches a refractory insulation sheathing for furnace members made of tubular metal, a metal tubular furnace member with sheathing which comprises, inter alia, an inner resilient layer and an outer layer of refractory tiles held in place by metal coupling links which are saddle-shaped, to fit around half of the furnace member, and have outward projections, such as studs or lugs, to engage through or in corresponding holes in tiles which meet in abutment over the saddle-shaped links, which have an angular extent of more than 180° “so that they grip with a spring action around the furnace member.” Morgan discloses that the tiles are positively held in place, by their engagement with the links, and are also cushioned and damped, against the loosening effects of vibration, and “but application of the invention to tubular supporting rails themselves and to other tubular members in furnaces where similar conditions exist is not precluded” (Morgan page 1 lines 9 – 79). Figure 5 shows a multiple link assembly 5 comprising projections 6, Morgan discloses that a series of the coupling links could be longitudinally spaced apparat to make a multiple link assembly “so that a series of ring-sets of tiles engaged with the studs 6 may be held against axial displacement”, by placing metal connecting strips 10 (analogous to the claimed “retention bar”) – (see Morgan page 2 lines 23 – 73, and FIGs. 1 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann with retention bars (e.g., Morgan link 5 and metal connecting strips 10) mounted on the mold body at circumferentially spaced apart locations, as suggested by the prior art, and capable of holding the heating pad against the mold body, for the purpose of e.g., having the heating pad positively held in place, by their engagement with the links 5 and the metal connecting strips 10, since Morgan teaches that this arrangement also cushions and dampens, against the loosening effects of vibration. (MPEP 2143 (I)(G)).
Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of at least four circumferentially adjacent retention bars being spaced apart less than 90 degrees. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange at least four of the circumferentially adjacent retention bars to be spaced apart less than 90 degrees, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the circumferentially adjacent retention bars for the purpose of e.g., distribute the clamping forces around the mold body as desired. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C).
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 14, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, wherein the mold body comprises a steel mold form sheet (Gronquist [0043] “clamp band B is a strap or band 52 of steel or other suitable heat conductive metal”), except for specifically disclosing, stainless steel.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected stainless steel for the material of the steel mold form sheet in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan, for the purpose of e.g., make the steel mold form corrosion resistant, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 15. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, wherein the mold body has a first end portion and a second end portion, and a length extending along a longitudinal axis (see Gronquist FIG. 6), the mold body comprising a mold form sheet (e.g., Gronquist 52) having a first longitudinal edge margin (52a), an opposite second longitudinal edge margin (52b), and a width extending from the first longitudinal edge margin to the second longitudinal edge margin (gap or space 50, Gronquist [0042]-[0043]), the mold form sheet worked into a clamshell field joint mold shape (see Gronquist FIG. 6) such that the width extends circumferentially about the longitudinal axis and the first longitudinal edge margin opposes the second longitudinal edge margin in adjacent, spaced apart relation therewith (see Gronquist FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 16. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 15, wherein the mold body further comprises a plurality of retention bar mounting studs (e.g., Gronquist 58) arranged in individual stud rows spaced apart circumferentially about the longitudinal axis (see Gronquist FIG. 6 and [0044]), wherein there is one of the stud rows for each of the retaining bars (e.g., see Morgan FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 17. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 16, wherein each of the individual stud rows comprises three of the retention bar mounting studs 58 (see Gronquist FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 18. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 15, wherein the mold body further comprises a first longitudinal flange (Gronquist 54) on the first longitudinal edge margin (52a) and a second longitudinal flange (56) on the second longitudinal edge margin (52b), the first and second longitudinal flanges (54, 56) configured to define an elongate waste receptacle therebetween for receiving discardable waste of the curable insulation material, the elongate waste receptacle being open to the mold cavity (e.g., gap or space 50, Gronquist FIG. 6 and [0043]-[0044], similarly, Hoffmann [0111] teaches “a vent 67 at the top of the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 diametrically opposed to the first gate 56 allows air to escape as the mould cavity 40 fills with molten PP 58.”).
Regarding claim 19. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 18, wherein the first longitudinal flange and the second longitudinal flange are at an upper end portion of the mold body, except for specifically disclosing, the injection port is diametrically opposite the elongate waste receptacle at a lower end portion of the mold body.
Hoffmann, however, discloses at [0111] a vent 67 [analogous to the claimed waste receptacle] at the top of the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 diametrically opposed to the first gate 56 allows air to escape as the mould cavity 40 fills with molten PP 58.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the injection port in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan to be diametrically opposite the elongate waste receptacle (Gronquist gap 50, Hoffmann’s vent 67) at a lower end portion of the mold body, as suggested by the prior art of Hoffmann, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Claim(s) 2 – 3 and 5 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1), and MORGAN REFRACTORIES LIMITED (GB 1558475 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tailor et al. (US 2015/0219264 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 2, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, except for, wherein the heating system comprises a temperature controller for controlling the heating pad.
Tailor et al., in the same field of endeavor of improvements to an apparatus for heating a heat shrinkable sleeve applied around a welded pipe joint during pipeline construction, or for pre-heating a welded pipe joint before treating or coating [0002], teaches an apparatus comprising a frame member [analogous to the claimed “mold body”], adapted to be disposed around said article and/or sleeve, and having a heater device (having two or more longitudinally disposed heating zones and two or more radially disposed heating sectors) adapted to heat the elongate tubular article, and a controller for operating the heater device [0054], [0064].
Taylor et al. discloses that the controller 33 may be separate from support structure 35 or which may be integrated within it, controls the level and/or intensity of heat output from heating element layer 32. The controller 33 may be thermostatically controlled, may be controlled through the measurement of resistance in heating element layer 32, may be a timer, or may simply be an operator--selected switch. [0099].
Taylor et al. discloses the apparatus could comprise several separate heating areas (which may have specified number of these [heating] strips, more densely packed strips would emit more infrared waves and more heat output), which can be independently set for different heat intensities and temperatures, or different times of heating by the controller [0109]-[0113], and that the controller provides further improvement to the apparatus in the way of allowing for a pre-warming program that minimizes heating time delays at the time of operating the apparatus, providing financial value by speeding up the process [0131].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the electrical heater in the heating system of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan’s field joint mold assembly, with a temperature controller for controlling the heating pad, as suggested by the prior art, for the purpose of e.g., providing the field joint mold assembly with the capability of controlling the level and/or intensity of heat output from heating element layer, as taught by Taylor et al., since "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One of ordinary skill would have been financially incentivized to pursue the modification, since Taylor et al. teaches the controller provides further improvement to the apparatus in the way of allowing for a pre-warming program that minimizes heating time delays at the time of operating the apparatus, providing financial value by speeding up the process [0131]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 3, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 2, wherein the temperature controller is one of a temperature switch, a thermostat, and a rheostat (e.g., Taylor et al. discloses “The controller 33 may be thermostatically controlled, may be controlled through the measurement of resistance in heating element layer 32, may be a timer, or may simply be an operator--selected switch.” [0099]).
Regarding claim 5, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, wherein the heating pad is a first heating pad and the heating system further comprising a second heating pad (e.g., Gronquist discloses heating band elements 40a, 40b, 40c [0034]-[0035], Taylor et al. discloses the apparatus could comprise several separate heating areas [0109]-[0113]).
Regarding claim 6, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 5, wherein the mold body has a longitudinal axis and a first longitudinal section and a second longitudinal section spaced apart along the longitudinal axis (e.g., see Gronquist FIGs. 3, see Taylor et al. FIGs.13), the first heating pad covering the first longitudinal section (e.g., Gronquist 42a, e.g., Taylor FIGs. 8, 13) and the second heating pad covering the second longitudinal section (e.g., Gronquist 42b, Taylor et al. [0107] discloses the heating elements may be divided into segments such as segments 32a-e, FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 6, wherein the first heating pad and the second heating pad are separated by a gap (e.g., see Gronquist FIG. 5, e.g., Taylor FIG. 13 shows several heating pads 92 separated by gaps), except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the injection port is located in the gap.
Hoffmann, however, teaches injection ports (gates 56 connected to valves 64) located in gaps formed on the mold between the mold water jacket (see Hoffmann FIG. 6a [0110]-[0112]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the injection port in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor to be located in a gap between the heating pads, for the purpose of e.g., avoiding the heat from the heating pads from directly influencing the temperature of the injection port, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C):
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 8, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 6, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the retention bars (Morgan metal connecting strips 10) are mounted on the mold body such that the first heating pad and the second heating pad are sandwiched between the mold body and the retention bars whereby the retention bars hold the first heating pad and the second heating pad on the mold body (e.g., Morgan FIG. 1 shows link 5 with inner layer 2 above, over which the metal connecting strips could be placed , as shown in Morgan’s FIG. 5, see Morgan page 1 lines 9 – 79).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the retention bars (Morgan metal connecting strips 10) to be mounted on the mold body such that the first heating pad and the second heating pad are sandwiched between the mold body and the retention bars whereby the retention bars hold the first heating pad and the second heating pad on the mold body, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C).
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
One would have been motivated to rearrange the retention bars for the purpose of e.g., having the heating pads positively held in place, by their engagement with the links 5 and the metal connecting strips 10, since Morgan teaches that this arrangement also cushions and dampens, against the loosening effects of vibration. (MPEP 2143 (I)(G)).
Regarding claim 9, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor discloses the field joint mold assembly of claim 8, except for the rearrangement of the retention bars mounted on the mold body at circumferentially spaced apart locations about the longitudinal axis so that all circumferentially adjacent retention bars are spaced less than 90 degrees apart. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the retention bars mounted on the mold body at circumferentially spaced apart locations about the longitudinal axis so that all circumferentially adjacent retention bars are spaced less than 90 degrees apart, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the circumferentially adjacent retention bars for the purpose of e.g., distribute the clamping forces around the mold body as desired. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C).
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 10, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor discloses the field joint mold assembly of claim 9, wherein each retention bar (Morgan 10) has a first end portion and a second end portion spaced apart along the longitudinal axis (e.g., see Morgan FIG. 5), the first end portion of each retention bar being fastened to the mold body at a first fastening point, the second end portion of each retention bar being fastened to the mold body at a second fastening point (e.g., see Morgan FIG. 5), so that the first heating pad and second heating pad in the modified field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan would be located between the first fastening point and the second fastening point along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 11, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor discloses the field joint mold assembly of claim 10, wherein each retention bar is further fastened to the mold body at a third fastening point between the first heating pad and the second heating pad (e.g., see Morgan FIG. 5). However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the fastening points in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B).
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 5, wherein the temperature controller is a first temperature controller for the first heating pad and the heating system further comprises a second temperature controller for the second heating pad (e.g., Taylor et al. discloses controlling several heating pads independently from each other [0109]-[0110] “zones 42a, 42b, 44a, 44b, 44c, 44d, 46a, 46b, 46c, and 46d comprises a separate stamped foil element strips, which can be controlled separately by controller 33”, as well as the use of separate controllers e.g., controller 33 could comprise a separate primary controller [0112]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1), and MORGAN REFRACTORIES LIMITED (GB 1558475 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by the non-patent literature of BriskHeat “HEATING BLANKETS”, 2010 (NPL_1, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the heating pad comprises a resistive heating element encased in silicone rubber.
Gronquist [0027], however, discloses that “The sheet has an electrically conductive element E mounted or integrally formed therewith prior to being formed into the cylindrical sleeve C. According to the present invention, the electrically conductive element E may be of a variety of types. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the sleeve C can be formed with an electrically conductive element E including a pair or set of circumferentially extending electrically conductive elements strips or bands 28 of a welding element/mesh.”
As evidenced by NPL_1, heating blankets made from silicone rubber are well-known in the art, “blankets are made from silicone rubber, making them resistant to chemicals and moisture. They also feature rapid heat-up capabilities.”1
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a resistive heating element encased in silicone rubber for the heating pad in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Morgan, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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 EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
1 NPL_1 retrieved from https://www.briskheat.com/products/heaters/silicone-rubber.html?srsltid=AfmBOoqPh5EnGEh8ZtHVVas8dHqBhche6PEX37Xs32HqfwN1Ugf9YqG6
Prosecution Insights