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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
Changes to the specification and abstract filed on 07/20/2026 are accepted.
Drawings
Changes to the drawings filed on 07/20/2026 are accepted.
Claim Status
With regard to claim 19, Applicant has provided the wrong claim status identifiers in the claim set filed 07/20/2026. Claim 19 should be labeled “Currently Amended” and while the amendment filed on 07/20/2026 has been examined on the merits, any future submissions by Applicant containing incorrect status identifiers for any of the claims will be held as non-compliant.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the pope body” and should be “the pipe body”.
Claim 1 recites “fluid tight” and should include a hyphen to recite “fluid-tight”.
Claim 5 recites “a second liner vent opening…extending into or between the second sidewall of the first valley and the second sidewall of the second valley” and should be “a second liner vent opening…extending first sidewall of the second valley” since the second liner vent opening does not extend into the sidewalls of the valleys and the second liner vent opening is between opposite first and second sidewalls of the first and second valleys.
Claim 8 recites “the second gasket,” and should be “the second gasket corrugation,”.
Claim 10 recites “one or more void openings are formed in the liner and the openings” and should be “one or more vent openings are formed in the liner, and the one or more vent openings”.
Claim 11 recites “fluid tight” and should include a hyphen to recite “fluid-tight”.
Claim 14 recites “wherein a first vent opening is defined within the leading face” and should be “wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening
Claim 15 recites “wherein a first vent opening is defined within the leading face” and should be “wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-10 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 6 recites “the…third liner vent openings” which lacks antecedent basis because the current amendment to claim 5 replaced the “third liner vent opening” to be a second liner vent opening. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the first[[,]] and second
Claim 9 recites “wherein one more vent openings are formed in…the first gasket corrugation and the openings extend into the leading void” which is unclear if these are the same vent openings defined in claim 1. Claim 1 is currently amended to have second and third vent openings in the first valley which includes the first corrugation and one of the second and third vent openings extend into the first corrugation and into the leading void. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein one more vent openings are formed in the leading face one or more openings extend into the leading void” to avoid conflict with the openings in claim 1 that extend into the first corrugation and to have proper antecedent basis of the one or more openings.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “second and third vent openings” without reciting a first vent opening because the first vent opening is on the leading face as described in applicant’s specification in order to be consistent with the specification. Therefore, “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. will be interpreted as labels for all claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lupke et al. (US 2010/0032046 A1, hereinafter “Lupke”).
In regard to claim 11, Lupke discloses a corrugated pipe (Fig. 7 shows a corrugated pipe) defining a spigot (See image below, indicated spigot), the corrugated pipe comprising:
a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end (See image below), the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation forming a fluid-tight connection (See image below, the trailing end is coupled to a pipe body of itself and to a pipe body at 27 at respective connection corrugation which forms a fluid-tight connection by at least one gasket “OR”), the leading face opposite the trailing end; and
a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body (See image below, indicated liner extends along an interior surface of spigot and both pipe bodies also have liners), the liner defining a fluid flow path (See image below, the liner defines a fluid flow path), the spigot further comprising:
a first gasket corrugation that is circumferentially positioned around the spigot (See image below, first gasket corrugation at the indicated leading face which is circumferentially positioned around the spigot), the first gasket corrugation defining a first valley having first and second sidewalls (See image below, the first gasket corrugation defines a first valley having first and second sidewalls similar to applicant’s invention); and
a first liner vent opening defined within the liner (Figs. 7 and 9, holes 136 and in [0067-0070] discloses if the pipe is not used for drainage, holes can extend through the liner).
PNG
media_image1.png
161
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 12, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 11, comprising a second gasket corrugation adjacent to the first gasket corrugation (Fig. 7, there are at least two peaks and valleys that define the spigot, therefore, the peak and valley further away from the leading face defines a second gasket corrugation adjacent the first gasket corrugation), the second gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot (Fig. 17, the second gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot) and defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls (Fig. 17, the second valley further away from the leading face has first and second sidewalls similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 13, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 12, wherein at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations are in contact with the liner (Fig. 7, the first and second gasket corrugations are in contact with the liner at the valleys similar to the applicant’s invention).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke (US 2010/0032046 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lupke discloses a corrugated pipe (Fig. 7 shows a corrugated pipe) comprising:
a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end (See image below, indicated spigot has a leading face and a trailing end similar to applicant’s invention), the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation (See image below, the trailing end is integrally formed and coupled to the pipe body at a connection corrugation similar to applicant’s invention. It is noted that the term “pipe body” in applicant’s specification is only used for the part “115” which is formed with the spigot. If applicant intended “pipe body” to be a separate component such as a bell pipe body, then the trailing end of Lupke as shown in the image below is also coupled to a bell pipe body 27.), the coupling of the trailing end and the pipe body being fluid-tight (See image below, the trailing end and the pipe body is formed as a single part, therefore, the trailing end and pipe body are coupled as fluid-tight similar to applicant’s invention or the trailing end is fluid-tight with the bell pipe body 27 by the gaskets “OR”), the leading face opposite the trailing end (See image below), the spigot having a lesser peak diameter than the pipe body (See image below, the spigot has a lesser peak diameter than the pipe body which have larger corrugations similar to the applicant’s invention or the spigot has a less peak diameter than the bell pipe body 27 similar to applicant’s invention), the spigot extending a spigot distance from the leading face to the trailing end (See image below, a spigot distance can be defined from the leading face to the trailing end); and
a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body (See image below, indicated liner extends along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body or bell pipe body 27 similar to the applicant’s invention), the liner defining a fluid flow path (See image below, indicated liner defines a fluid flow path similar to applicant’s invention), the spigot further comprising:
first and second gasket corrugations that are circumferentially positioned around the spigot (Fig. 7 and see image below, the indicated spigot has at least two peaks and two valleys that define at least first and second corrugations), the first and second gasket corrugations in contact with the liner (See image below, indicated contact are the two valleys of the corrugations in contact with the liner similar to the applicant’s invention),
PNG
media_image1.png
161
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first and second gasket corrugations defines a corrugation length from the pipe body (See image below, the first and second gasket corrugations have at least the indicated corrugation length to the trailing end where it starts to transition to the pipe body or the first and second gasket corrugations define a corrugation length by the gap between the free end of the bell pipe body 27 and the trailing end), the corrugation length less than half of the spigot length (See image below, the corrugation length is less than half of the spigot length and the gap between the free end of the bell pipe body 27 and the trailing end is also less than half of the spigot length),
PNG
media_image2.png
252
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first gasket corrugation defines a first valley having a first and second sidewalls (See image below, indicated first valley has first and second sidewalls similar to applicant’s invention).
PNG
media_image3.png
241
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lupke does not expressly disclose second and third vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively.
In Figs. 7-9 of Lupke and the description in paragraphs [0067]-[0070] discloses the vent holes 136 can be either formed on top of the peaks of the corrugations, on the sidewall facing the bell, or on the liner below the peaks in order to allow the trapped air in each corrugated peak to flow outside. However, Lupke does not expressly disclose vent openings on each sidewall of each peak such that second and third vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valleys of Lupke to try having second and third vent openings defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to forming vent holes in the corrugations of the spigot of Lupke and in [0068] of Lupke also supports any number of holes to be used. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried having vent holes on both sidewalls of each peak of corrugations in the spigot instead of just one side such that second and third vent openings are formed within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley in order to have the advantage of increased reliability to releasing the trapped air and further reduced resistance of air trapped in the peaks as described in [0067] of Lupke.
Additionally, it has been 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). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lupke to duplicate the vent holes on one sidewall of the peaks of corrugation to be on both sidewalls defining the peak in order to have at least the advantage of reliability of releasing trapped air and reduced amount of resistance of the trapped air.
In regard to claim 2, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 1, wherein a gasket is circumferentially positioned within at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations (Fig. 7, one of the gaskets “OR” is circumferentially positioned within at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations as shown).
In regard to claim 3, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 1, wherein at least one of a first vent opening is defined within the leading face (Figs. 7-9, at least one holes 136 define a first vent opening within the leading face) or a first liner vent opening is defined within the liner (In [0070] discloses if the pipe is not used for drainage, the holes can be through the liner).
In regard to claim 4, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 3, wherein a second liner vent opening is defined in the liner between one of the first sidewall of the first valley and the leading face (See image below, first and second liner vent openings can be defined as shown in order allow trapped air to escape as described in [0067]-[0070] which discloses the reformed corrugations can have trapped air which having the venting holes allow the trapped air to escape and in situations not used for drainage, the venting holes can be in the liner for the air to escape).
PNG
media_image4.png
269
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 4, wherein the second gasket corrugation defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls (See image above for claim 4, indicated second valley has at least first and second sidewalls), and wherein a second liner vent opening is defined in the liner extending between the second sidewall of the first valley and the first sidewall of the second valley (See image above for claim 4, indicated second liner vent opening extends between the second sidewall of the first valley and the first sidewall of the second valley).
In regard to claim 15, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 11, wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening within the leading face (See claim 3 above for the same reasons), and a second vent opening is defined within the first sidewall of the first valley (See claim 1 above for the same reasons), further wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (Fig. 7, leading void under 13b), wherein the first vent opening and the second vent opening extend into the leading void (Fig. 7, having the vent openings at both sidewalls of peak at 13b would lead to the leading void).
In regard to claim 19, Lupke discloses a corrugated pipe comprising:
a) a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end, a first vent opening defined within the leading face, the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation, the leading face opposite the trailing end, the spigot extending a spigot distance from the leading face to the trailing end;
b) a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body, the liner defining a fluid flow path, the spigot further comprising:
i) first and second gasket corrugations that are circumferentially positioned around the spigot, the first and second gasket corrugations spaced from the liner, the first and second gasket corrugations defines a corrugation length from the pipe body, the corrugation length less than half of the spigot length (See claim 1 above for all the limitations of “A corrugated pipe…half of the spigot length”), the first gasket corrugation defining a first valley having first and second sidewalls, and second and third vent openings defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively (See claims 1-4 above for the same reasons that requires the limitation of “the first gasket…first valley, respectively”); and
c) a gasket circumferentially positioned within at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations (See claim 2 above for the same reasons that require the limitation of “a gasket…second gasket corrugations”).
In regard to claim 20, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 19, wherein the first, second, and third vent openings extend at least one of transverse or parallel to the fluid flow path (See claims 1-4 and 19 for the same reasons, therefore, the vent openings on the sidewalls of the corrugation peak would at least be parallel to the fluid flow path).
Claims 5-10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke (US 2010/0032046 A1) in view of Lupke (US 2009/0206595 A1, hereinafter “Lupke ‘595”).
In regard to claim 5, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 4, wherein the second gasket corrugation defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls (See image above for claim 1, indicated second valley has at least first and second sidewalls),
Lupkey does not expressly disclose wherein fourth and fifth vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the second valley, respectively because Lupke shows in Fig. 7 only two corrugation peaks instead of three like applicant’s invention.
In the related field of spigot and bell corrugated pipe joints and by the same inventors, Lupke ‘595 discloses at least having three or four corrugated peaks of a spigot fit within a bell (Fig. 2 shows at least three peaks within a bell and Fig. 2A shows at least four peaks within a bell).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spigot length and amount of corrugated peaks in the spigot of Lupke to include an additional peak and valley defining a third corrugation defining a third valley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a stronger and more reliable pipe joint as taught by Lupke ‘595. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that having more corrugations of a spigot that fits within a bell allows for at least a stronger and more reliably sealed connection. Therefore, the two corrugated peaks of the spigot of Lupke to have three corrugated peaks would allow for a stronger and more reliably sealed connected with a bell.
Additionally, see claims 3 and 4 above for the same reasons to have vent openings the sidewalls of the valleys and the liner below each corrugated peak.
In regard to claim 6, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 5, wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth vent openings and the first and second liner vent openings extend at least one of transverse or parallel to the fluid flow path (See claims 3-5 above for the same reasons and in Figs. 7 and 9, the vent openings 136 are parallel to the fluid flow path and the liner vent openings would be transverse to the fluid flow path).
In regard to claim 7, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 6, and Lupke further discloses wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (Fig. 7, below 13b defines a leading void), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose wherein the first vent opening and the second vent opening extend into the leading void (See claims 1-4 above for the same reasons with regard to having the first and second vent openings which would extend into the leading void).
In regard to claim 8, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 7, and Lupke further discloses wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation, and the liner (Fig. 7, intermediate void under 13a), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 further discloses wherein the third vent opening and the fourth vent opening extend into the intermediate void (See claims 1-4 above for the same reasons with regard to having third and fourth vent openings. The third and fourth vent openings would extend into the intermediate void under 13 as shown in Fig. 7 of Lupke.), and configured to fluidly couple the intermediate void to the leading void (Fig. 7 of Lupke, the vent openings would allow fluid coupling between the intermediate void to the leading void similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 9, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 1 wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (Fig. 7, void below 13b defines a leading void which is between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner), wherein one or more vent openings are formed in the leading face (See claim 3 above for the same reasons to have a vent opening in the leading face) and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose one or more vent opening in the leading face, and the vent openings extend into the leading void (See claims 1-4 above for the same reasons to have vent openings on both sidewalls of each peak, therefore, the vent openings in the first gasket corrugation and the leading face would extend into the leading void).
In regard to claim 10, Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 9, wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation, and the liner, wherein one or more vent openings are formed in the liner, and the one or more vent openings extend into the intermediate void (See claim 8 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 14, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 12, wherein a first vent opening within the leading face (See claim 3 above for the same reasons), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose second and third vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively (See claims 1-4 above for the same reasons), and fourth and fifth vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the second valley, respectively (See claim 5 above for the same reasons), further wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth vent openings extend at least one of transverse or parallel to the fluid flow path (See claims 1-5 above for the same reasons and in Figs. 7 and 9 of Lupke, the vent openings 136 in the sidewalls are at least parallel to the fluid flow path).
In regard to claim 16, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 14, comprising wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation, and the liner (Fig. 7 of Lupke, intermediate void under 13a), wherein the third vent opening and the fourth vent opening extend into the intermediate void (Fig. 7 and see claim 14 above for the same reasons, therefore, the third and fourth openings extend into the intermediate void).
In regard to claim 17, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 16, wherein a third gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot and adjacent to the first and second gasket corrugations, the third gasket corrugation in contact with the liner, the third gasket corrugation defining a third valley having first and second sidewalls (See claim 5 above for the same reasons to have a third corrugation defining a third valley).
In regard to claim 18, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 17, and Lupke further discloses wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (See claim 7 above for the same reasons), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 further disclose wherein the first vent opening and the second vent opening extend into the leading void (See claim 7 above for the same reasons), and further wherein a medial void is defined between the second gasket corrugation, the third gasket corrugation, and the liner (See claim 5 above for the same reasons with regard to having a third gasket corrugation that would include an additional third corrugation peak which would define a medial void), wherein the vent openings are configured to fluidly couple the medial, intermediate, and leading voids (See claims 1-5 above for the same reasons, therefore, each corrugation peak would have vent openings that are configured to fluidly couple the medial, intermediate, and leading voids. See the following which is a recreation of Fig. 7 of Lupke in view of the teaching of Lupke ‘595 that would suggest at least three corrugation peaks with vent openings. As shown below, each void can have liner vent openings and sidewall openings.).
PNG
media_image5.png
285
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the claim objections have been amended as the Office suggested, namely, claim 11, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because applicant failed to correct all the claim objections in the previous Office Action and claim 11 was not previously objected to. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and unclear.
In response to applicant’s arguments that absent the reformation, there is no teaching or suggestion of using a venting hole 136 and Lupke teaches a single hole in a single sidewall of a corrugation, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because reformation is required when forming the shape of the spigot which is shown in Figs. 8 and 9 of Lupke that utilizes the heat roller 139 to form the spigot requires at least 3 vent holes 136 in order to allow air (air is a fluid) to escape. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that there is no disclosure, teaching, or contemplation of fluid flow through said vent hole 136 and the vent hole is present only because of the process of reforming the corrugation and not beneficial to fluid dynamics within the pipe in any way, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the vent holes 136 are present for a critical reason which is forming the shape of the spigot to allow air to escape and after reformation, the vent holes 136 do not disappear unless stated otherwise. Additionally, the claims are to having holes in the corrugation and/or liner and not a matter of reformation or fluid dynamics within the pipe. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that in Lupke fewer holes are better within the single sidewall, as air escape is the only consideration and claim 1 requires second and third vent openings defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, Lupke fails to teach each and every element of the claimed invention, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Fig. 9 of Lupke clearly shows at least three vent holes 136 and the concern of Lupke is too many holes that would significantly weaken the structure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider having vent holes on both sides of the corrugation rather than only on one side. Even if there were three vent holes 136 on each side of the corrugation, such holes would not significantly weaken the corrugation because there would still be so much more surface area as compared the total area of the vent holes. Additionally, for larger and/or thicker corrugations, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider more holes to allow air to escape when the voids of the corrugations are larger. Applicant’s arguments appear to be narrowly focused on only what is shown in Fig. 9 without reasonable consideration of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Lupke which the criticality of the vent holes 136 is that such holes exist and can be arranged around corrugations to allow air to escape. Even common sense would reasonably suggest that if vent holes are placed on one side of the corrugation as shown in Fig. 9, vent holes can also be placed on the other side of the corrugation absent any suggestion by Lupke that would go against such placement. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and failed to reasonably consider one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s arguments that [0070] of Lupke does not disclose “a first liner vent opening defined within the liner” as required by claim 11, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because [0070] of Lupke recites “however the pipe is noted used for drainage the venting holes could be made in the inner pipe wall” which is also acknowledge by applicant’s arguments. Therefore, Lupke discloses that the liner can have vent holes when the corrugated pipe is not used for drainage. Furthermore, the spigot of Lupke has gaskets “OR” to define a fluid-tight connection with at least a pipe bell body 27 shown in Fig. 7. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments to claims 2-10 and 12-20, applicant’s arguments relied upon the same arguments to claims 1 and 11 and the Examiner respectfully disagree for the same reasons above for claims 1 and 11.
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 William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights