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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because even though the groups have some scope overlap (i.e. sufficiently related), the restriction requirement is still proper and burdensome search still exists as detailed in the mailed restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 9-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the two connection sections of the sealing frame ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the plastic wall of the first component ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the plastic wall of the first component comprises that at least one connection surface of the plastic wall of the first component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component comprises that at least one connection surface of the sealing part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what of the previously recited structure is being referred to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component comprises that at least one connection surface of the sealing part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the liquid-tight connection between the sealing frame and the plastic wall of the basic body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “objects to be cooled”, wherein it is unclear what “objects to be cooled” is referring to since the exact term “objects to be cooled” has already been recited in the claim/ in the claim x from which the claim depends. Is the term “objects to be cooled” requiring that there are multiple “objects to be cooled” or is the term referring back to the previously recited term? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as --the objects to be cooled-- for clarity.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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) 1-5, 8-14 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.
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
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 behaviour 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 3, Thompson et al. 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 (figs), the 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 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
671
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4, Thompson et al. teach wherein the two connection sections 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 liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the plastic wall of the first component comprises that at least one connection surface of the plastic wall of the first component is pressed with
a connection surface of the sealing part made of the metallic material (noting the mating connection has several surfaces in contact with each other ),
the connection surface of the sealing part made of the metallic material is arranged at the first connection section (figs), the connection surface of the 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).
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 objects 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); objects 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 part is a sealing frame which 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 liquid-tight connection between the sealing frame and the plastic wall of the basic body comprises that the connection surface of the plastic wall of the basic body
is 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 an 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.
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) 3, 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 3,
GRIFFIN 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 wherein the two connection sections 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
the liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the metallic, including aluminum, wall of the second component comprises that at least one connection surface of the sealing part is 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 sealing part is arranged at the second 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 liquid-tight connection between the sealing part and the plastic wall of the first component comprises that at least one connection surface of the plastic wall of the first component is pressed with
a connection surface of the sealing part made of the metallic material (noting the mating connection has several surfaces in contact with each other ),
the connection surface of the sealing part made of the metallic material is arranged at the first connection section (figs), the connection surface of the 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 liquid-tight connection between the sealing frame and the plastic wall of the basic body comprises that the connection surface of the plastic wall of the basic body
is 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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 19644543 A1.
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