DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. US 2022/0305597 Al.
Re claim 1, Thompson et al. teach
a sealing system for the liquid-tight sealing of a sealing site (noting broadly the sealing site is the surrounding area of where the two components come in contact) which is arranged between a plastic wall (34, para 27) of a first component and a metallic, including aluminum, wall (22, para 7) of the second component, wherein the metallic, including aluminum, wall is connected to the plastic wall, the sealing system comprising:
an areal sealing part (annotated fig, para 26) made of a metallic material which covers the sealing site while sealing the sealing site in a liquid-tight manner, wherein, the areal sealing part is connected to the plastic wall of the first component in a liquid-tight manner and is welded in a liquid-tight manner to the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component.
wherein the sealing site is a circumferential sealing gap (annotated fig) between the plastic wall of the first component and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component (figs),
wherein the areal sealing part is a circumferential sealing frame (noting in the joint is where the two parts meet which is then considered a “circumferential sealing frame”) which covers the sealing gap while sealing the sealing gap such that a first circumferential connection section of the areal sealing part is connected to the first component in a liquid-tight manner,
and wherein a second circumferential connection section of the areal sealing part is connected to the second component in a liquid-tight manner ( noting the sealing site is fluid/liquid tight).
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘cover’ is
2
b
: to lie over : envelop
a blanket covering her legs
3
: to lay or spread something over : overlay
Cover the seedbed with straw.
4
a
: to spread over
Snow covered the hills.
b
: to appear here and there on the surface of
a region covered with lakes
5
: to place or set a cover or covering over).
The recitation of “is welded in a liquid-tight manner” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” The phrase has been examined as -- is bonded or connected in a liquid-tight manner --.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
671
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Thompson et al. teach wherein the areal sealing part has a thickness (figs), at least in a deformation section, which allows for an elastic deformation of the areal sealing part arranged to compensate for material-related and/or design-related differences in the thermal expansion behaviour of the plastic wall of the first component and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component (noting the parts and connection are connected and bonded which would naturally allow for thermal expansion).
Furthermore, the only structural requirements of the claim are for a thickness to be present.
For clarity, the recitation “…allows for an elastic deformation of the areal sealing part arranged to compensate for material-related and/or design-related differences in the thermal expansion behavior of the plastic wall of the first component and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 4, Thompson et al. teach wherein
the first circumferential connection section and the second circumferential connection section of the sealing frame
extend in different planes and are connected to one another by an intermediate section which connects them to one another by the deformation section (noting that any connecting parts is a three dimensional part which extends in all three planes to take up space, and the term “an intermediate section” is very broad and any connecting parts can be considered to have intermediate sections close to the sealing site).
Re claim 5, Thompson et al. teach
wherein the areal sealing part and the plastic wall of the first component are connected in a liquid-tight manner formed by at least one connection surface of the plastic wall of the first component being pressed with
a connection surface of the areal sealing part made of the metallic material (noting the mating connection has several surfaces in contact with each other ),
the connection surface of the areal sealing part made of the metallic material is arranged at the first circumferential connection section (figs), the connection surface of the areal sealing part has a nano- and/or micro-structuring (figs, noting teeth like structuring) which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface,
and the nano- and/or micro-structuring causes a surface enlargement and/or has three- dimensional recesses, which comprise undercuts (noting notches/gaps in between the teeth), and/or has barbs (noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘barb’ is
: a sharp projection extending backward (as from the point of an arrow or fishhook) and preventing easy extraction
also : a sharp projection with its point similarly oblique to something else; which are in between the teeth).
The recitation of “is pressed with” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
The recitation of “which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 8, Thompson et al. teach an apparatus, comprising: a first component with a plastic wall (34, para 27); and a second component with a wall made of a metallic material (22, para 7);
wherein the wall made of a metallic material is connected to the plastic wall of the first component (figs);
wherein a sealing site is located between the plastic wall of the first component and the wall made of the metallic material of the second component; wherein the sealing site is sealed in a liquid-tight manner by a sealing system which includes a sealing part (annotated fig) made of a metallic material which covers the sealing site while sealing the sealing site in a liquid-tight manner; and wherein the sealing part is connected to the plastic wall of the first component in a liquid- tight manner and the sealing part is welded in a liquid-tight manner to the wall made of the metallic material of the second component (see the rejection of claim 1),
wherein the areal sealing part is a circumferential sealing frame (noting in the joint is where the two parts meet which is then considered a “circumferential sealing frame”) which covers the sealing gap while sealing the sealing gap such that a first circumferential connection section of the areal sealing part is connected to the first component in a liquid-tight manner,
and wherein a second circumferential connection section of the areal sealing part is connected to the second component in a liquid-tight manner ( noting the sealing site is fluid/liquid tight)..
PNG
media_image3.png
662
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 9, Thompson et al. teach
wherein the apparatus is a hybrid cooling component for the dissipation of heat from an object to be cooled (102); a cooling medium for dissipating the waste heat is conductable through the hybrid cooling component (para 29); the first component with the plastic wall includes a basic body (noting the body of the part is a body) made of plastic of the hybrid cooling component and the second component with the wall made of the metallic material includes a cooling body made of a metallic material of the hybrid cooling component (see the rejection of claim 1); the object to be cooled can be arranged on the cooling body (figs, para 29); and the cooling body is connected to the basic body made of plastic while forming the sealing site which is covered by the sealing part and forms a circumferential gap (annotated fig).
PNG
media_image4.png
671
808
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10, Thompson et al. teach wherein the sealing frame covers the sealing gap such that a first connection surface of the sealing frame is connected in a liquid-tight manner to a connection surface of the plastic wall of the basic body of the hybrid cooling component, and a second connection surface of the sealing frame is connected in a liquid-tight manner to a circumferential connection surface of the cooling body of the hybrid cooling component (noting that any connecting parts is a three dimensional part which extends in all three planes to take up space, and the term “an intermediate section” is very broad and any connecting parts can be considered to have intermediate sections close to the sealing site). .
Re claim 11, Thompson et al. teach wherein the sealing frame and the plastic wall of the basic body the connection surface of the plastic wall of the basic body
being pressed with the first connection surface of the sealing frame (noting the mating connection has several surfaces in contact with each other ),
the first connection surface of the sealing frame has a nano- and/or micro-structuring which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface; and the nano- and/or micro-structuring causes a surface enlargement and/or has recesses which comprise undercuts and/or has barbs (noting notches/gaps in between the teeth; figs, noting teeth like structuring; noting notches/gaps in between the teeth; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘barb’ is
: a sharp projection extending backward (as from the point of an arrow or fishhook) and preventing easy extraction
also : a sharp projection with its point similarly oblique to something else; which are in between the teeth).
The recitation of “is pressed with” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
The recitation of “which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 12, Thompson et al. teach wherein the object to be cooled (102) is arranged in the hybrid cooling component and is connected to the cooling body while bearing against the cooling body (figs).
Re claim 13, Thompson et al. teach wherein one side of the cooling body forms a limitation surface of a cooling medium channel of the hybrid cooling component, through which a cooling medium is conductable for the evacuation of waste heat of the object to be cooled, and another side of the cooling body forms a cooling surface for the object to be cooled (figs, para 29, noting an interior and outer surface contacting air and a TIM).
Re claim 14, Thompson et al. teach wherein the sealing frame comprises a first, outer, border section, on which the first connection surface is arranged (noting the sealing frame has at a minimum four general bordering sections, see the square in the annotated fig defining general sections, surfaces etc, which meet the limitations of three “comprises a first, outer, border section” and then a fourth “a second, inner, border section”), and a second, inner, border section, on which the second connection surface is arranged;
between the two border sections there is arranged a deformation section of the sealing frame which has a thickness (see the rejection of claim 2) which allows for an elastic deformation of the deformation section which is able to compensate for, material-related and/or design-related differences in the thermal expansion behaviour of the plastic wall of the basic body and the metallic material of the cooling body.
Furthermore, the only structural requirements of the claim are for a thickness to be present.
For clarity, the recitation “…allows for an elastic deformation of the deformation section which is able to compensate for, material-related and/or design-related differences in the thermal expansion behaviour of the plastic wall of the basic body and the metallic material of the cooling body…” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 15, Thompson et al. teach wherein the areal sealing part is a physically distinct component from the first component and the second component (Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘distinct’ is distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same or presenting a clear unmistakable impression. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘component’ is a constituent part. The “areal sealing part” of claim 1 clearly meets these additional broad limitations beyond any different sort of definitions of the term which are not defined in the spec and would be considered new matter. Examiner additionally notes that many “continuous” parts an integral part to have distinct portions of the same integral part which are considered a constituent part to make up the whole unit; figs).
Re claim 16, Thompson et al. teach wherein the sealing part is a physically distinct component from the first component and the second component (Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘distinct’ is distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same or presenting a clear unmistakable impression. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘component’ is a constituent part. The “areal sealing part” of claim 1 clearly meets these additional broad limitations beyond any different sort of definitions of the term which are not defined in the spec and would be considered new matter. Examiner additionally notes that many “continuous” parts an integral part to have distinct portions of the same integral part which are considered a constituent part to make up the whole unit; figs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. in view of GRIFFIN US 2022/0395933 Al.
Additionally Re claim 1,
GRIFFIN Also teach wherein the sealing site is a circumferential sealing gap (annotated fig) between the plastic wall of the first component and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component (noting either 102 will be the plastic part and 104 will be the metal part or vice a versa in the insta combination), the sealing part is a circumferential sealing frame (noting in the instant combination the joint is where the two parts meet which is then considered a “circumferential sealing frame”) which covers the sealing gap while sealing the sealing gap such that a first circumferential connection section of the sealing part is connected to the first component in a liquid-tight manner, and a second circumferential connection section of the sealing part is connected to the second component in a liquid-tight manner (see the rejection of claim 1 noting the sealing site is already fluid/liquid tight) to join a tubular structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sealing details as taught by GRIFFIN in the Thompson et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for the bond of the primary reference to be used in conduit applications for circumferential sealing.
PNG
media_image5.png
677
639
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4, Thompson et al. teach the first circumferential connection section and the second circumferential connection section of the sealing frame
extend in different planes and are connected to one another by an intermediate section which connects them to one another by the deformation section (noting that any connecting parts is a three dimensional part which extends in all three planes to take up space, and the term “an intermediate section” is very broad and any connecting parts can be considered to have intermediate sections close to the sealing site).
Re claim 6, Thompson et al., as modified, teach wherein
the areal sealing part and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component
are connected in a liquid tight manner formed by
at least one connection surface of the areal sealing part being connected to a connection surface of the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component by through-transmission laser beam welding, wherein the connection surface of the areal sealing part is arranged at the second circumferential connection section (noting all parts connected in the final assembly and “at” and “arranged at” is very broad and met by the prior art by the unitary connection in the instant combination).
The recitation of “by through-transmission laser beam welding” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. in view of Forbes US 20180009509 A1.
Additionally, Re claim 5, Thompson et al. teach
wherein the areal sealing part and the plastic wall of the first component are connected in a liquid-tight manner formed by at least one connection surface of the plastic wall of the first component being pressed with
a connection surface of the areal sealing part made of the metallic material (noting the mating connection has several surfaces in contact with each other ),
the connection surface of the areal sealing part made of the metallic material is arranged at the first circumferential connection section (figs), the connection surface of the areal sealing part has a nano- and/or micro-structuring (figs, noting teeth like structuring) which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface,
and the nano- and/or micro-structuring causes a surface enlargement and/or has three- dimensional recesses, which comprise undercuts (noting notches/gaps in between the teeth), and/or has barbs (noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘barb’ is
: a sharp projection extending backward (as from the point of an arrow or fishhook) and preventing easy extraction
also : a sharp projection with its point similarly oblique to something else; which are in between the teeth).
Additionally, Forbes teach has barbs (para 55) to aid in locking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include barbs as taught by Forbes in the Thompson et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a secure boding site and the plastic to flow under the barbs (in the instant combination).
The recitation of “is pressed with” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
The recitation of “which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 11, Thompson et al. teach wherein the sealing frame and the plastic wall of the basic body the connection surface of the plastic wall of the basic body
being pressed with the first connection surface of the sealing frame (noting the mating connection has several surfaces in contact with each other ),
the first connection surface of the sealing frame has a nano- and/or micro-structuring which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface; and the nano- and/or micro-structuring causes a surface enlargement and/or has recesses which comprise undercuts and/or has barbs (noting notches/gaps in between the teeth; figs, noting teeth like structuring; noting notches/gaps in between the teeth; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘barb’ is
: a sharp projection extending backward (as from the point of an arrow or fishhook) and preventing easy extraction
also : a sharp projection with its point similarly oblique to something else; which are in between the teeth).
The recitation of “is pressed with” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
The recitation of “which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Additionally, Forbes teach has barbs (para 55) to aid in locking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include barbs as taught by Forbes in the Thompson et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a secure boding site and the plastic to flow under the barbs (in the instant combination).
The recitation of “is pressed with” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
The recitation of “which is applied by a chemical and/or physical micro-structuring method into the connection surface” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 6/17/2026, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the term “welded” should be interpreted to require structure that differentiates over the prior art such as a “bead” and details given then term “welded” have required structure as shown in the MPEP 2113 Part I. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not proven that “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made”.” The applicant has only noted that it is well known in the art that a seam may exist in between the two different welded materials that . However, given applicant detailed disclosure with very fine tolerance connections as shown in fig 4. For example and described in the specification, there does not appear to be a seam which meets these material characteristics, and if claim such a bead appears to denote new matter not previously disclosed. Without this seam clearly disclosed in detail at such an important aspect of the instant application , it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how the seam would be configured relative to the other parts in the seal where all the parts meet. Further, applicant argues that the underlying grain structure of the joining parts maybe changed, however this would still only require two parts to be joined with possible changed underlying grain structure changed, however only two parts are claimed in the claim, and the prior art teach two joined parts. It is possible that “ the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product” (MPEP 2113 Part I) in the sense that the weld results in a “liquid -tight manner”. There prior art teach the joining that results in a “liquid -tight manner”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a component in addition to the first and second components that is welded to the second component”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that the joint where the two part meet cannot be considered a frame and the prior art fail to teach a separate part “a circumferential sealing frame”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the requirement is not a separate specific structure be “is a circumferential sealing frame” but that the “ the areal sealing part is a circumferential sealing frame “; therefore if the “areal sealing part” acts as a “a circumferential sealing frame” the claim limitations are met. As applicant has supplied the definition of a -frame- being and further noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘’ is “something composed of parts fitted together and united” or “the underlying constructional system or structure that gives shape or strength”. The “areal sealing part” clearly meets both definitions and is disposed circumferentially. Applicant argues that a place where two points meet cannot be considered a separate structure. However, in the rejection of claim 1, the “areal sealing part” is not merely a point or location where two structure meet; but, a joint in and of its self with a teethed connection which is structurally different from and showing obvious separations and distinctions from the stri8ahgt wall portions of the objects before they meet (see the rejection of claim 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly consider the “areal sealing part” cited in claim 1 to be a structure in an of itself and separate from the start or curved wall parts which are not joined by the interlocking teeth.
The applicant argues that the “areal sealing part” is not a physically distinct component since the they are the ends of the walls at the joint. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although applicant has provided one interpretation of what one of ordinary skill in the art may define a “physical distinct component”, that does not mean more than one meaning or interpretation is also present. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘distinct’ is distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same or presenting a clear unmistakable impression. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘component’ is a constituent part. The “areal sealing part” of claim 1 clearly meets these additional broad limitations beyond any different sort of definitions of the term which are not defined in the spec and would be considered new matter. Examiner additionally notes that many “continuous” parts an integral part to have distinct portions of the same integral part which are considered a constituent part to make up the whole unit.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights