CTNF 18/939,196 CTNF 93300 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required: In claim 21: the recitation of “an third condenser” (in line 8) should be amended to –a third condenser—. In claim 25: the recitation of “is connected” (in line 2) should be amended to –are connected—. In claim 28: the recitation of “is directly connected” (in line 2) should be amended to –are directly connected—. In claim 37: The recitation of “is disposed front portion” (in line 9 of page 5 ) should instead be amended to –is disposed in a front portion—. The recitation of “is disposed rear portion” (in line 10 of page 5 ) should instead be amended to –is disposed in a rear portion—. The recitation of “is spaced apart” (in the last line) should be amended to –are spaced apart—. In claim 38: The recitation of “on front surface” (in line 2) should instead be amended to –on a front surface—. The recitation of “is connected” (in line 3) should be amended to –are connected—. In claim 40: The recitation of “an third condenser” (in line 8 of page 5) should be amended to –a third condenser—. The recitation of “is connected” (in line 2 of page 6 ) should instead be amended to –are connected—. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 21-24, 26-27, 31-32 and 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 3-5 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,784 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent claims anticipate the subject matter of the instant application claims . 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. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 21 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the at least one of the second condenser and the third condenser” (in lines 10-11) with no explicit antecedent basis. The limitation as currently recited raises ambiguities as to whether a plurality for each of the second condenser and third condenser are required for infringement. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –at least one of the second condenser and the third condenser—. The claim recites “ the inside of the rear insulation wall” (in the last limitation) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will be construed as –an inside of a rear insulation wall—. The claim recites “at least one of the four corners” (in the last limitation) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will instead be construed as –at least one corner—. Claim 25 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the lateral section” (in lines 2-3) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –a lateral section—. Claim 26 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the frequency” (in line 2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –a frequency—. Claim 28 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the inlet” (in line 1) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –an inlet—. The claim recites “ the outlet” (in line 2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –an outlet—. Claim 29 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the inlet” (in line 2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –an inlet—. The claim recites “ the outlet” (in line 2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –an outlet—. Claim 30 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the inlet” (in line 2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –an inlet—. The claim recites “ the outlet” (in line 2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –an outlet—. Claim 36 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the hotline” (in lines 1-2) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –a hotline—. Claim 37 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the at least one of the second condenser and the third condenser” (in lines 5-6 of page 5 ) with no explicit antecedent basis. It should be noted that the claim only recites a “condenser”, a “hot line” and an “edge condenser”. It is further unclear whether claim 37 was intended to depend on a different claim. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will instead be construed as –at least one of the hot line and the edge condenser—. Claim 38 contains the following issues: The claim recites “ the lateral section” (in the last line) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –a lateral section—. Claim 39 contains the following issues: The claim recites “wherein the edge condenser is located at positions close to […]”, wherein it is unclear how a single structure (i.e., the edge condenser) can be located in various different locations. Moreover , the term “close” is a relative term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A review of the specification appears to merely show a reiteration of the claim language ( in ¶ 171 ), 1 without specifying a numerical distance value or threshold for what may be considered “close” for the purposes of anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes , the entire body of the claim will be construed as –wherein the edge condenser is located in the insulation wall of the refrigerating apparatus—. Claim 40 contains the following issues: The claim recites “a second” (in line 6), without explicitly reciting a structure. It is unclear whether the claim scope is directed to a “second condenser” or some other structure. For examination purposes , the recitation of “a second” will be construed as –a second condenser—. The claim recites “ the lateral section” (in the last line) with no explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes , the quoted recitation will simply be construed as –a lateral section—. Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-28 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niki et al. (JP 2006090663 A), herein Niki, in view of Rojey (US 4350020 A) . As per claim 21, Niki discloses a refrigerating apparatus ( 1; see figs. 3-4 ), comprising: a main body ( 2 ) having an interior space ( 3-6 ); a door ( 7-10 ) to open and close an opening of the main body ( 2; seat least fig. 3 ); a compressor ( 41 ) to compress a refrigerant; a first condenser ( 42 ) to condense the compressed refrigerant ( see at least fig. 4 ); a second condenser ( 43 ) disposed at a contact portion between the main body ( 2 ) and the door ( 7-10 ) to flow the refrigerant having passed through the first condenser ( see at least figs. 3-4 ); an third condenser ( 3C in First Annotated Figure 4 ) to flow the refrigerant having passed ( see arrows ) through the first condenser ( 42 ); an expander ( 45 or 47 ) to expand the refrigerant from at least one of the second condenser ( 43 ) and third condenser ( 3C ); and at least one evaporator ( 46 or 48 ) to evaporate the expanded refrigerant to supply cold air to the interior space ( see at least figs. 3-4 and ¶ 15 ), wherein the third condenser ( 3C ) is accommodated in an inside of a rear insulation wall ( evident from at least the First Annotated Figure 4 ) of the main body ( 2 ), extends along with at least one of the corners ( i.e., top right, top left and bottom left ) of the rear insulation wall of the main body ( 2 ), and performs additional heat radiation in addition to the first condenser ( 42 ) and the second condenser ( 43 ). PNG media_image1.png 770 718 media_image1.png Greyscale First Annotated Figure 4 However, Niki may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the refrigerant is a non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant. On the other hand, Rojey, directed to a heat pump system, discloses the use of a non-azeotropic refrigerant mixture to improve the performance coefficient ( col. 9, lines 42-44 ). Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. 2 As per (1), it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie determination of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, Rojey explicitly discloses that non-azeotropic mixtures improved the performance coefficient of the system. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Rojey has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the mixture, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Niki. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Niki and Rojey are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigeration systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Niki may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Rojey, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Niki by virtue of suggesting an improved coefficient of performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Niki and to have modified them with the teachings of Rojey, by having a non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant, in order to improve the coefficient of performance, as similarly suggested by Rojey, without yielding unpredictable results. As per claim 22, Niki as modified discloses wherein the third condenser ( 3C ) is disposed between ( upstream ) the second condenser ( 43 ) and ( downstream ) the expander ( 45 or 47 ) to radiate the heat of the non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant ( see fig. 4 ). As per claim 23, Niki as modified discloses wherein the non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant heat-radiated by the second condenser ( 43 of Niki ) performs heat radiation again ( e.g., via the pipe ) at the third condenser ( 3C of Niki ) to further radiate heat ( see at least fig. 4 of Niki ). As per claim 24, Niki as modified discloses wherein the second condenser ( 43 of Niki ) is disposed a front portion ( see at least figs. 3-4 of Niki ) of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 of Niki ), and the third condenser ( 3C of Niki ) is disposed a rear portion ( as evidenced by at least fig. 4 of Niki ) of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 of Niki ). As per claim 25, Niki as modified discloses wherein the second condenser ( 43 of Niki ) and the third condenser ( 3C of Niki ) are connected through a bottom edge portion of the lateral section ( see bottom right of the refrigerator in fig. 4 of Niki ) of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 of Niki ). As per claim 26, Niki as modified discloses wherein at least one of a frequency and stroke of the compressor ( 41 of Niki ) is controlled to provide a predetermined amount of heat to the second condenser ( see at least ¶¶ 17, 21 and 26 of Niki ). As per claim 27, Niki as modified discloses wherein the compressor ( 41 of Niki ) operates 3 in a continuous operation mode ( e.g., a low frequency operation; ¶ 26 of Niki ), and the temperature of the non- azeotropic mixture refrigerant discharged from the first condenser ( 42 of Niki ) maintains a predetermined temperature in the continuous operation mode ( e.g., through latent heat exchange ). As per claim 28, Niki as modified discloses wherein an inlet of the second condenser ( 43 of Niki ) and an outlet of the first condenser ( 42 of Niki ) are directly connected ( via 3C of Niki ). As per claim 37, Niki discloses a refrigerating apparatus ( 1 ), comprising: a main body ( 2 ) having an interior space ( 3-6 ); a door ( 7-10 ) to open and close an opening of the main body ( 2 ); a compressor ( 41 ) to compress a refrigerant ( see at least fig. 4 ); a condenser ( 42 ) to condense the compressed refrigerant; a hot line ( 43 ) to flow the refrigerant having passed ( see arrows ) through the condenser ( 42 ); an edge condenser ( 3C in First Annotated Figure 4 ) to flow the refrigerant having passed through the condenser ( 42 ); an expander ( 45 or 47 ) to expand the refrigerant from at least one of the hot line ( 43 ) and the edge condenser ( 3C in First Annotated Figure 4 ); and at least one evaporator ( 46, 48 ) to evaporate the expanded refrigerant to supply cold air to the interior space ( see figs. 3-4 ), wherein the hot line ( 43 ) is disposed front portion of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 ) and the edge condenser ( 3C in First Annotated Figure 4 ) is disposed rear portion of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 ) such that the hotline ( 43 ) and the edge condenser ( 3C ) are spaced apart from each other ( as shown in fig. 4 ). However, Niki may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the refrigerant is a non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant. On the other hand, Rojey, directed to a heat pump system, discloses the use of a non-azeotropic refrigerant mixture to improve the performance coefficient ( col. 9, lines 42-44 ). Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. 4 As per (1), it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie determination of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, Rojey explicitly discloses that non-azeotropic mixtures improved the performance coefficient of the system. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Rojey has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the mixture, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Niki. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Niki and Rojey are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigeration systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Niki may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Rojey, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Niki by virtue of suggesting an improved coefficient of performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Niki and to have modified them with the teachings of Rojey, by having a non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant, in order to improve the coefficient of performance, as similarly suggested by Rojey, without yielding unpredictable results. As per claim 38, Niki as modified discloses wherein the hotline ( 43 of Niki ) and the edge condenser ( 3C of Niki ) are disposed on front surface of the main body ( 2 of Niki ) and a rear surface of the main body ( 2 of Niki ) respectively ( evident from at least figs. 3-4 of Niki ), and the hot line ( 43 of Niki ) and the edge condenser ( 3C of Niki ) are connected through a bottom edge portion of the lateral section ( as shown in at least fig. 4 of Niki ) of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 of Niki ). As per claim 39, Niki as modified discloses wherein the edge condenser ( 3C of Niki ) is located in an insulation wall ( see figs. 3-4 of Niki ) of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 of Niki ). As per claim 40, Niki discloses a refrigerating apparatus ( 1 ), comprising: a main body ( 2 ) having an interior space ( 3-6 ); a door ( 7-10 ) to open and close an opening of the main body ( 2 ); a compressor ( 41 ) to compress a refrigerant ( see fig. 4 ); a first condenser ( 42 ) to condense the compressed refrigerant ( see fig. 4 ); a second condenser ( 3C in First Annotated Figure 4 ) to flow the refrigerant having passed through the first condenser ( 42 ); a third condenser ( 43 ) to flow the refrigerant having passed through the first condenser ( 42 ); an expander ( 45, 47 ) to expand the refrigerant from at least one of the second condenser ( 3C ) and third condenser ( 43 ); and at least one evaporator ( 46, 48 ) to evaporate the expanded refrigerant to supply cold air to the interior space ( see at least figs. 3-4 ), wherein the second condenser ( 3C ) and the third condenser ( 43 ) are connected through a bottom edge portion of the lateral section ( see fig. 4 ) of the refrigerating apparatus ( 1 ). However, Niki may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the refrigerant is a non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant. On the other hand, Rojey, directed to a heat pump system, discloses the use of a non-azeotropic refrigerant mixture to improve the performance coefficient ( col. 9, lines 42-44 ). Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. 5 As per (1), it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie determination of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, Rojey explicitly discloses that non-azeotropic mixtures improved the performance coefficient of the system. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Rojey has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the mixture, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Niki. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Niki and Rojey are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigeration systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Niki may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Rojey, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Niki by virtue of suggesting an improved coefficient of performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Niki and to have modified them with the teachings of Rojey, by having a non-azeotropic mixed refrigerant, in order to improve the coefficient of performance, as similarly suggested by Rojey, without yielding unpredictable results. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 29-36 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 6 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The prior art of record, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in the aforementioned claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time. 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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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. /MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 16 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 17 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 18 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/939,196 Page 19 Art Unit: 3763 1 See printed publication: US 20250060136 A1 . 2 See MPEP § 2143. 3 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II). 4 See MPEP § 2143. 5 See MPEP § 2143. 6 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights