DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected and claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on pages 15 and 16 that Washkewicz in view of Cline fails to disclose a sharp edge has a sharp corner because Cline teaches away from having a sharp corner, the examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Washkewicz explicitly discloses that the corner is already sharp
“The first barb 42 has a rounded rear corner 44. The remaining two barbs 45, 46 have sharp rear corners 47, 48. All of the barbs preferably have the same outside diameter.” (4:35-40)
Cline explicitly discloses that providing cylindrical portions protect edges against damage prior to assembly
“In respect to these two nipple constructions, and to other size nipples in accordance with the invention, the cylindrical portions shown on the flanges adjacent the rounded-off edges 30, 44 and 54 are provided in order to protect these edges against damage prior to assembly.” (4:24-28)
Providing cylindrical portions to the barbs of Washkewicz results in the proximal barbs comprising a tapered surface, a cylindrical portion, and a sharp corner (ex., Washkewicz discloses the last two barbs are sharp and Cline discloses a benefit of providing cylindrical portions).
The examiners rejection only provided the cylindrical portions to the barbs of Washkewicz to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly and there is no mention of the rounded corners of the barbs of Cline
“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28)” (see page 8 of the Non-Final rejection on 6/10/2026)
It has been held that “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (see In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually (ex., Cline) where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, the limitation “sharp edge” is a broad term and Cline already expresses discloses that the edge is “substantially sharp but rounded edge” (6:68-69).
In response to applicants argument on page 17 that Cline and Lowles teach conflicting approaches, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner is only relying on Lowles for the teachings that the dimensions of the corners are a known design parameter to one of ordinary skill in the art and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually (ex., Cline and Lowles) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (Washkewicz in view of Cline and Lowles). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicants arguments on page 17 that substituting Clines straight cylindrical land for Lowles tapered surface would defeat the friction mechanism of Lowles, the examiner respectfully disagrees because there is no mention in the office action of such substitution and the rejection is based on Washkewicz in view of Cline and Lowles not Lowles in view of Cline.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-20 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,966,238) in view of Cline et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,805,088).
In regards to claim 1, Washkewicz discloses:
A fitting (see annotated fig. 2 below hereinafter) comprising:
a head portion (see annotated fig. 2); and
a barbed portion (see annotated fig. 2) extending axially from the head portion,
wherein the barbed portion includes:
at least one distal barb (42, annotated fig. 2) having a curved edge (44, annotated fig. 2), and
at least one proximal barb (45, 46, annotated fig. 2) having a sharp edge (47, 48, annotated fig. 2)
a distal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) followed by a first ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one distal barb;
a proximal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) that is interposed between the at least one proximal barb and the head portion,
a second ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one proximal barb,
but does not disclose:
an intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second ramp that leads to the at least one proximal barb, and
wherein the sharp edge has a sharp corner formed at a transition from the at least one proximal barb to the proximal straight portion.
In regards to the straight portions, Cline discloses that providing a cylindrical straight portion between two barbs provides the benefit of allowing a hose to contract itself into the space (3:30-34), and
that the cylindrical straight portion should not be less than approximately 10% of the internal diameter of the bore of the hose to provide clearance for the minimum amount of contraction for the hose (3:53-60), and
that providing a cylindrical surface portion between two barbs aids in the ability of the nipple to hold the hose from being pulled off by an external axially applied force such that the axial distance between barbs should be increased to the greatest length possible (3:53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify axial spacing between each barb of Washkewicz such that a cylindrical straight portion is directly in-between each barb to provide the benefits of allowing the hose to contract into the space to prevent the hose from being pulled off the nipple, as taught by Cline (3:50-68; see also 3:68-72, where the axial distance of the proximate straight portion should be greater than the axial distance between each barb).
In regards to the sharp edge having a sharp corner, Cline discloses that providing cylindrical portions (ex., a straight edge similar to the sharp edge of the present invention) to barbs provides the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly (4:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Washkewicz further discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein the barbed portion has a smaller outer diameter compared to the head portion (see annotated fig. 2 above hereinafter).
In regards to claim 6, Washkewicz further discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein an outer diameter of the at least one distal barb is substantially equal to a respective outer diameter of the at least one proximal barb (4:37-38, where all barbs are the same outer diameter).
In regards to claim 7, Washkewicz further discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein the at least one proximal barb comprises:
a first proximal barb (45); and
a second proximal barb (46),
wherein the first proximal barb is axially interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second proximal barb (see annotated fig. 2).
In regards to claim 8, Washkewicz in view of Cline further discloses:
The fitting of claim 7, wherein the intermediate straight portion is a first intermediate straight portion (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the barbed portion further comprises:
the first intermediate straight portion is interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the first proximal barb,
wherein the barbed portion further comprises:
a second intermediate straight portion (ex., see rejection of claim 1) that is interposed between the first proximal barb and a third ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the second proximal barb (see annotated fig. 2),
wherein the proximal straight portion is interposed between the second proximal barb and the head portion (see annotated fig. 2).
In regards to claim 9, Washkewicz in view of Cline further discloses:
The fitting of claim 8, wherein the sharp corner is formed at a transition from the second proximal barb to the proximal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2), and
wherein the first proximal barb has a respective sharp corner formed at a respective transition from the first proximal barb to the second intermediate straight portion (see annotated fig. 2).
Claim(s) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz in view of Cline as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and in further view of Lowles et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,210,100).
In regards to claims 4, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein the sharp corner and the curved edge has a radius (it is inherent that both the corner and edge comprise a radius as Washkewicz discloses a two proximate sharp barbs and one curved distal barb),
but does not disclose:
wherein the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 10, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 9, wherein the sharp corner has a first radius and the respective sharp corner has a second radius,
but does not disclose:
wherein the first radius and the second radius are an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz in view of Clark et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,331,850).
In regards to claim 11, Washkewicz discloses:
An assembly (see annotated fig. 2 above hereinafter) comprising:
a refrigerant hose (10) comprising:
an elastomeric inner tube (11; 2:46-47, where the inner tube is made of rubber),
a barrier layer (13; 2:44, where braided yarn is used) surrounding the elastomeric inner tube,
the barrier layer comprising a polymer material (ex., Dacron in 2:19-20), and
an outer cover layer (15) surrounding the elastomeric inner tube and the barrier layer; and
a fitting (40) comprising:
a head portion (see annotated fig. 2) interfacing with an end of the refrigerant hose, and
a barbed portion (entirety of 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 46, 48) extending axially from the head portion and inserted into the elastomeric inner tube of the refrigerant hose,
wherein the barbed portion includes: (i) at least one distal barb (42) having a curved edge (44) to facilitate insertion of the barbed portion into the elastomeric inner tube, and (ii) at least one proximal barb (45, 46; 4:35-37) having a sharp edge (47, 48; 4:35-37) to enhance grip between the fitting and the elastomeric inner tube,
wherein the fitting expands the elastomeric inner tube and the barrier layer, thereby compressing the barrier layer and forming a sealed connection (see annotated fig. 2),
but does not disclose:
the polymer material configured to reduce a rate of permeation of refrigerant through the refrigerant hose.
In regards to the hose, Clark discloses a similar hose (see fig. 1 hereinafter) comprising:
a inner elastomeric rubber tube (102; 5:51-57),
a polyamide barrier layer (104; 9:58-59),
a rubber backing layer (106; 5:51-57),
a braided reinforcement layer (108; 10:63-67), and
a cover layer (110; 11:9-14),
wherein the hose provides good flexibility, fracture resistance, and low permeation ratings for a variety of refrigerant gases (1:15-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the hose of Washkewicz with the hose of Clark to meet the limitations of claim because Washkewicz discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by a simple substitution of the hose of Clark, Clark discloses a similar device comprising the hose which provides good flexibility, fracture resistance, and low permeation ratings for a variety of refrigerant gases (1:15-23), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known hose for another known hose because simply substituting one known hose comprising an outer layer, braided layer, and inner layer for another similar hose comprising an inner elastomeric rubber tube (102; 5:51-57), a polyamide layer (104; 9:58-59), a rubber backing layer (106; 5:51-57),a braided reinforcement layer (108; 10:63-67), and a cover layer (110; 11:9-14) which provides at least good flexibility, fracture resistance, and low permeation ratings (1:15-23) would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 12, Washkewicz in view of Clark further discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the refrigerant hose further comprises:
an elastomeric layer surrounding the barrier layer (ex., see 104 in fig. 1 of Clark); and
a braided layer surrounding the elastomeric layer (ex., see 108 in fig. 1 of Clark),
wherein the outer cover layer surrounds the braided layer (ex., see 110 in fig. 1 of Clark).
In regards to claim 16, Washkewicz further discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the barbed portion has a smaller outer diameter compared to the head portion (see annotated fig. 2).
In regards to claim 17, Washkewicz further discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein an outer diameter of the at least one distal barb is substantially equal to a respective outer diameter of the at least one proximal barb (4:37-38).
In regards to claim 18, Washkewicz further discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the at least one proximal barb comprises:
a first proximal barb (45); and
a second proximal barb (46),
wherein the first proximal barb is axially interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second proximal barb (see annotated fig. 2).
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz in view of Clark as applied to claim 11 and 18 above and in further view of Cline et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,805,088).
In regards to claim 13, Washkewicz in view of Clark discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the barbed portion further comprises:
a distal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) followed by a first ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one distal barb;
a proximal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) that is interposed between the at least one proximal barb and the head portion,
a second ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one proximal barb,
but does not disclose:
an intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second ramp that leads to the at least one proximal barb.
In regards to the straight portions, Cline discloses that providing a cylindrical straight portion between two barbs provides the benefit of allowing a hose to contract itself into the space (3:30-34), and
that the cylindrical straight portion should not be less than approximately 10% of the internal diameter of the bore of the hose to provide clearance for the minimum amount of contraction for the hose (3:53-60), and
that providing a cylindrical surface portion between two barbs aids in the ability of the nipple to hold the hose from being pulled off by an external axially applied force such that the axial distance between barbs should be increased to the greatest length possible (3:53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify axial spacing between each barb of Washkewicz such that a cylindrical straight portion is directly in-between each barb to provide the benefits of allowing the hose to contract into the space to prevent the hose from being pulled off the nipple, as taught by Cline (3:50-68; see also 3:68-72, where the axial distance of the proximate straight portion should be greater than the axial distance between each barb).
In regards to claim 14, Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline discloses:
The assembly of claim 13,
but does not disclose:
wherein the sharp edge has a sharp corner formed at a transition from the at least one proximal barb to the proximal straight portion.
In regards to the sharp edge having a sharp corner, Cline discloses that providing cylindrical portions (ex., a straight edge similar to the sharp edge of the present invention) to barbs provides the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly (4:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28).
In regards to claim 19, Washkewicz in view of Clark discloses:
The assembly of claim 18, wherein the barbed portion further comprises:
a distal straight portion followed by a first ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one distal barb;
a proximal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) that is interposed between the second proximal barb and the head portion.
a second ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the first proximal barb,
a third ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the second proximal barb,
but does not disclose:
a first intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second ramp that leads to the first proximal barb;
a second intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the first proximal barb and the third ramp that leads to the second proximal barb.
In regards to the straight portions, Cline discloses that providing a cylindrical straight portion between two barbs provides the benefit of allowing a hose to contract itself into the space (3:30-34), and
that the cylindrical straight portion should not be less than approximately 10% of the internal diameter of the bore of the hose to provide clearance for the minimum amount of contraction for the hose (3:53-60), and
that providing a cylindrical surface portion between two barbs aids in the ability of the nipple to hold the hose from being pulled off by an external axially applied force such that the axial distance between barbs should be increased to the greatest length possible (3:53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify axial spacing between each barb of Washkewicz such that a cylindrical straight portion is directly in-between each barb to provide the benefits of allowing the hose to contract into the space to prevent the hose from being pulled off the nipple, as taught by Cline (3:50-68; see also 3:68-72, where the axial distance of the proximate straight portion should be greater than the axial distance between each barb).
Claim(s) 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline as applied to claims 14 and 19 above and in further view of Lowles et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,210,100).
In regards to claim 15, Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline discloses:
The assembly of claim 14, wherein the sharp corner and the curved edge has a radius (it is inherent that both the corner and edge comprise a radius as Washkewicz discloses a two proximate sharp barbs and one curved distal barb),
but does not disclose:
wherein the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 20, Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline discloses:
The assembly of claim 19, wherein the barbed portion includes the distal barb (42) having the curved edge (44) and the proximal barbs (45, 46; 4:35-37) having the sharp edges (47, 48; 4:35-37; ex., similar to the corners of the present invention),
but does not disclose:
wherein the first proximal barb has a sharp corner formed at a transition from the first proximal barb to the second intermediate straight portion (ex., a sharp edge having a sharp corner), and
wherein the second proximal barb has a respective sharp corner formed at a respective transition from the second proximal barb to the proximal straight portion (ex., a sharp edge having a sharp corner),
wherein the sharp corner has a first radius and the respective sharp corner has a second radius, and
wherein the first radius and the second radius are an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the sharp edge and sharp corner, Cline discloses that providing cylindrical portions (ex., a straight edge similar to the sharp edge as discussed in 0033 of the present invention) to barbs provides the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly (4:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28).
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Clark and Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
