Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
Changes to the specification filed on 07/22/2026 are accepted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a release tool having complementary protrusions…until the release tool reaches the closed distal end” of claim 12 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “2000MPa” and should be “2000 MPa” to include a proper space.
Claim 19 recites “2000Mpa” and should be “2000 MPa” to include a proper space.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “interference features…which engage with complementary features…to provide a tactile force as the locking cap approaches the locked configuration”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 6 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
On page 17, lines 1-10, recites “the recesses 44 and teeth 53 engage one another to provide a tactile/audible indication of the locked position”
For purposes of the examination, examiner will interpret “the locking cap is provided with interference features which…engage with complementary features which…provide a tactile force” as “the locking cap is provided with recesses which…engage with teeth which…provide a tactile force”.
Because the above claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “when in use” multiple instances which is unclear because it recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Additionally, it is unclear of the intent of “when in use” and is confusing and ambiguous because if the limitation is not in use, there is a question if the limitation is required or not. For example, in claim 1, lines 3-4, recites “wherein, when in use, the tubular part has an outer face to seal with an inner diameter of a pipe” which is unclear and ambiguous if the recitation after “when in use” is required or not. When compared to “whereintubular part that has an outer face intended to seal with an inner diameter of a pipe. Also, it is unclear if the limitation is required in any or only some uses. For examination purposes, the limitation of “when in use” in all instances of the claim will be interpreted as deleted.
Claims 5, 7-8, 12, and 15-16 recite “when in use” and the claims are unclear for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “A combination of a pipe connector and a release tool comprising:…until the release tool reaches the closed distal end” which is unclear if the release tool is positively required or not. The dependent claims to claim 12 recite a pipe connector according to claim 12 which further adds to the confusion of whether or not the release tool is required. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as ““A combination of a pipe connector and a release tool, the combination comprising:” such that the combination comprises the pipe connector and the release tool.
Claim 12 recites “a release tool having complementary protrusions” which is unclear if this is the same or different release tool recited in the preamble of the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[a]] the release tool having complementary protrusions” such that it is the same release tool as recited in the preamble.
Claims 13-21 respectively recite “A pipe connector according to claim 12” which is unclear if these claims intended to include everything in claim 12 or just the pipe connector. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “The combination of the pipe connector and the release tool according to claim 12” to be clear that these are dependent claims to claim 12 and include all the features recited in claim 12.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 2-3, 6, and 24-26 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 5 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushima Kazutaka (WO 2011099186 A1, hereinafter “Kazutaka”).
In regard to claim 5, Kazutaka discloses a pipe connector (Fig. 2A shows a pipe connector) comprising:
a hollow body having a central throughway defining an axis (Fig. 2A, the part 1 defines a hollow body having a central throughway defining an axis), the body comprising a tubular part at at least one end (Fig. 2A, tubular part at 1c at at least one end of body 1), the tubular part having an outer face to seal with an inner diameter of a pipe placed over the tubular part (Figs. 2A-2C, the tubular part at 1c has an outer face to seal with an inner diameter of pipe 101);
a collet fitted over the tubular part of the body so as to be axially fixed with respect to the body (Fig. 2A, the part 20 defines at least a collet which fits over 1c and is axially fixed with respect to the body at 11) and being spaced from the tubular part to form a cavity for the pipe (Fig. 2A, space radially between 20 and 1 defines a cavity for pipe 101), an inner face of the collet being configured to grip the pipe (Fig. 2C, an inner face at 25 that contacts 101 grips 101) and an outer face of the collet having a first screw thread (Fig. 2A, an outer face at 24 which has threads defining a first screw thread); and
a locking cap having an inner face with a second screw thread which is complementary to the first screw thread (Fig. 2B, nut 30 defines a locking cap having an inner face with threads defining a second screw thread complementary to the first screw thread), wherein screwing the locking cap onto the collet from an unlocked configuration to a locked configuration causes inward deflection of the collet to press the collet onto the pipe (Figs. 2A-2C show screwing of 30 from an unlocked configuration to a locked configuration that causes inward deflection of 20 to press 20 onto 101) and the pipe onto the tubular part to seal an interface between the body and the pipe (Fig. 2C, 101 is pressed onto the tubular part to seal an interface at 1e between the body 1 and 101);
the locking cap having a first proximal stop face at a proximal end and a first distal stop face at a distal end (See image below, both ends of 30 has a first proximal stop face and a first distal stop face),
complementary proximal and distal second stop faces are fixed with respect to the hollow body (See image below, indicated second proximal and distal stop faces are complementary to the first proximal and distal stop faces and are fixed with respect to the hollow body at least in the locked configuration), wherein the first stop faces engage with the respective second stop faces when the locking cap reaches the locked configuration to prevent further axial movement of the locking cap onto the body (See image below, the first stop faces engage by contact with the second stop faces in the locked configuration as shown which prevents further axial movement of 30 onto the body 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 25, Kazutaka discloses a pipe connector according to claim 5, wherein no part of the locking cap has a hexagonal cross section in a radial plane (Fig. 2B, no part of 30 has a hexagonal cross-section in at least one radial plane).
In regard to claim 26, Kazutaka discloses a pipe connector according to claim 5, wherein the locking cap, in the locked configuration does not extend distally past a distal end of the cavity (Fig. 2C, the entire locking cap 30 in the locked configuration shown does not extend distally past a distal end of the cavity because 30 is axially stopped by 20).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazutaka (WO 2011099186 A1) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2019/0040982 A1, hereinafter “Cantrell”).
Kazutaka discloses a pipe connector according to claim 5, but does not expressly disclose wherein the locking cap is provided with recesses which are radially spaced from the first distal stop face and which engage with teeth to provide a tactile force as the locking cap approaches the locked configuration.
In the related field of threaded pipe couplings, Cantrell teaches a locking cap (Fig. 2, nut 40 defines a locking cap) is provided with recesses which engage with teeth (Fig. 6, recesses between 801 and 802 that engage with teeth at 841 and 842) to provide a tactile force as the locking cap approaches a locked configuration (Fig. 6 and in [0034] discloses the complementary recesses and teeth engage each other in order to have at least the advantage of tactile and/or visual indication of a sufficient connection in a locked configuration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection at the first distal stop face of Kazutaka to include the locking cap is provided with recesses which are radially spaced from the first distal stop face and which engage with teeth to provide a tactile force as the locking cap approaches the locked configuration with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of tactile and/or visual feedback to indicate a sufficient connection to a user as taught by Cantrell.
Claims 12, 14-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazutaka (WO 2011099186 A1) in view of Sonerud (US 2009/0058075 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Kazutaka discloses a pipe connector comprising:
a hollow body having a central throughway defining an axis, the body comprising a tubular part at at least one end, the tubular part having an outer face to seal with an inner diameter of a pipe placed over the tubular part;
a collet fitted over the tubular part of the body so as to be axially fixed with respect to the body and being spaced from the tubular part to form a cavity for the pipe, an inner face of the collet being configured to grip the pipe, and an outer face of the collet having a first screw thread; and
a locking cap having an inner face with a second screw thread which is complementary to the first screw thread, wherein screwing the locking cap onto the collet from an unlocked configuration to a locked configuration causes inward deflection of the collet to press the collet onto the pipe and the pipe onto the tubular part to seal an interface between the body and the pipe (See claim 5 above for the same reasons that recite the same features of “A pipe connector…the body and the pipe”);
wherein the locking cap is provided on an outer face of the locking cap with a plurality of axial grooves (See image below, an outer face of 30 has a plurality of axial grooves), the grooves having a closed distal end and an open proximal end (See image below, the grooves have a closed distal end and an open proximal end as shown) and having a constant depth between the distal and proximal ends (See image below, the grooves have a constant depth without any change in shape between the distal and proximal ends).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kazutaka does not expressly disclose a combination of the pipe connector and a release tool, wherein the combination further comprises a release tool having complementary protrusions configured to mate within the plurality of axial grooves of the locking cap, wherein engagement of the complementary protrusions with the plurality of axial grooves guides the release tool over the locking cap until the release tool reaches the closed distal end.
In the related field of threaded pipe connectors, Sonerud teaches a release tool (Figs. 6-8 show the release tool 7), wherein the release tool has complementary protrusions configured to mate within a plurality of axial grooves of a locking cap (Figs. 4-5 show a threaded locking cap 5 which has a plurality of axial grooves 55 and in Figs. 6-8, protrusions 73 of tool 7 are complementary protrusions configured to mate within the axial grooves 55), wherein engagement of the complementary protrusions with the plurality of axial grooves guides the release tool over the locking cap until the release tool reaches a closed distal end (Fig. 5, each 55 has a closed distal end which provides at least a stop for 73 and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably slide as much of 73 until it reaches the distal end of 55 in order to obtain the best grip between 7 and 5) in order to have at least the advantage of a simple way to mount a lock nut (In [0036-0037] discloses the advantage of the tool).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axial grooves of the locking cap and the pipe connector of Kazutaka to include the release tool of Sonerud and have axial grooves that are complementarily shaped to engage with the release tool with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a simple way to mount the locking cap as taught by Sonerud.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand threaded locking caps or nuts have outer surfaces with grooves or an interrupted shape to allow a user to grip onto either by hand or a tool to assist with turning the cap or nut. Also, the criticality of applicant’s invention with regard to the axial grooves is to have a feature to assist with gripping either by hand or a tool, however, as mentioned above, this is within one of ordinary skill in the art and shown by Kazutaka in view of Sonerud. Additionally, applicant’s drawing failed to even show the release tool which further emphasizes the lack of criticality of the release tool and that the criticality is more of a matter of having axial grooves on the locking cap which is disclosed by both Kazutaka and Sonerud.
In regard to claim 14, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka further discloses wherein the locking cap is captive on the collet (Fig. 2C, 30 is captive on the collet in the locked configuration).
In regard to claim 15, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka further discloses wherein the inner face of the collet has at least one tooth to grip the pipe (Fig. 2A, the inner face at 25b has at least one tooth that grips onto 101).
In regard to claim 16, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka further discloses wherein in the locked configuration, there is no axial movement between the body, collet, locking cap, and pipe (Fig. 2C, the body 1, collet 20, locking cap 30, and pipe 101 are fixed relative to each other in the locked configuration shown, therefore, there is no axial movement).
In regard to claim 20, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka further discloses wherein a radially outwardly facing surface of the locking cap is devoid of opposing flat surfaces (Fig. 2A, 30 has at least one smooth outwardly facing circumferential surface that is devoid of opposing flat surfaces).
In regard to claim 21, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka further discloses wherein no part of the locking cap has a hexagonal cross section in a radial plane (Fig. 2B, no part of 30 has a hexagonal cross-section in at least one radial plane).
Claims 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazutaka (WO 2011099186 A1) in view of Sonerud (US 2009/0058075 A1) and further in view of Ota Hiroshi (KR 20120110416 A, hereinafter “Hiroshi”).
In regard to claim 13, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, but do not expressly disclose wherein one or more of the hollow body, collet and locking cap is made of plastic.
Hiroshi teaches a joint body can be made of PPSU or PPS in order to have at least the advantage of at least rigidity (Fig. 10 shows a joint body and in [0037] of the English translation discloses the joint body can be made of PPSU or PPS in order to have at least rigidity).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of one or more of the hollow body, collet and locking cap of Kazutaka and Sonerud to be made of plastic such as PPSU or PPS with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a strong and rigid material as taught by Hiroshi.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of one or more of the hollow body, collet and locking cap of Kazutaka in view of Sonerud to be made of a known material such as plastic in order to have at least the advantage of design flexibility, easy to produce, insulation, durability, and high strength-to-weight ratio as disclosed at https://www.atlasfibre.com/advantages-of-plastics/.
In regard to claim 17, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka in view of Sonerud and Hiroshi disclose wherein the pipe connector is capable of maintaining the seal when exposed to a continuous temperature of 70°C, 80°C, or 90°C (See claim 13 above for similar reasons such that the parts of the pipe connector can be made of PPSU or PPS).
It is noted that the applicant’s specification lacks a specific description of what allows the seal to be maintained of when exposed to a continuous temperature of 70°C, 80°C, or 90°C and one of ordinary skill in the art in light of applicant’s specification would reasonably determine that it is the material of the pipe connector that allows the seal to be maintained of when exposed to a continuous temperature of 70°C, 80°C, or 90°C absent description of any other particular structure that would allow such a performance. Applicant’s specification describes parts of the pipe connector can be made of PPSU or PPS, however, as mentioned above for claim 13, such materials are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, PPSU has a glass transition temperature of 220°C to 231°C such that temperatures of 70°C, 80°C, or 90°C would not damage PPSU.
In regard to claim 18, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka in view of Sonerud and Hiroshi disclose wherein at least one of the body, collet and locking cap have a tensile modulus of greater than 2000 MPa and a heat distortion temperature of greater than 200°C (See claims 13 and 17 above for similar reasons).
Similar to claim 17 above, claim 18 attempts to claim performance of at least one of the body, collet and locking cap based on the material composition, however, Hiroshi teaches at least PPSU or PPS as known material capable of having such claimed performances and it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to selected known material for their advantages. Additionally, PPSU is known to have a tensile modulus of 2100 MPa to 2400 MPa and a heat distortion temperature (glass transition temperature) of 220°C to 231°C. See https://www.curbellplastics.com/materials/plastics/ppsu/.
In regard to claim 19, Kazutaka and Sonerud disclose a pipe connector according to claim 12, and Kazutaka in view of Sonerud and Hiroshi disclose wherein all of the body, collet, and locking cap have a tensile modulus of greater than 2000 MPa (See claims 13 and 17-18 for the same reasons).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified all of the body, collet, and locking cap of Kazutaka in view of Sonerud and Hiroshi to be made of plastic or PPSU having a tensile modulus of greater than 2000 MPa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a strong material and ease of manufacturing by using the same material for more than one component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 with regard to claim 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Kazutaka does not disclose all the features of claim 5 because the proximal stop faces as annotated in the previous rejection do not prevent further axial movement of the locking cap relative to the body, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because claim 5 recites “wherein the first stop faces engage with the respective second stop faces when the locking cap reaches the locked configuration to prevent further axial movement of the locking cap onto the hollow body” which can be reasonably interpreted as when all the respective stop faces engage with each other and reach the locked configuration, one or more of the engaged stop faces prevent further axial movement of the locking cap onto the hollow body. In the case of the annotated figure in the previous rejection, at least the distal stop faces prevent further axial movement. The claimed language does not strictly require all the engaged stop faces to prevent axial movement. If applicant intended both the distal and proximal engaged stop faces to prevent axial movement, then it must be properly claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments to claim 6, the applicant relied upon the same argument to claim 5 and the Examiner respectfully disagree for the same reasons above for claim 5. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 with regard to claims 12-13 and 17-19 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely only on the same reference applied in the prior rejection of record for all teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the updated rejection above that includes the prior art Sonerud that teaches a release tool
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights