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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
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, 5, 7, and 21 are no longer 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Paragraph [0027] teaches “In the case where the marking device is utilized in construction, the interrupted marks define a code orientation line for aligning fastener placement to correspond with centerlines of wall or roof studs.”
The intended purpose of Applicant’s device is for marking the centerline of studs by rolling the roller perpendicular to the direction of the studs, across a piece of plywood for example.
However, claim 26 requires “The construction material marking device of claim 25, wherein the interrupted marking line corresponds to a centerline of a building stud.”
The claim implies that the device is intended to travel parallel to the direction of a single stud, not perpendicular to the direction of the studs. Using the inventive roller along “a centerline of a building stud” would create interrupted marks along a single stud which may be useful for ensuring fasteners are evenly spaced along the length of each stud for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 7,051,444) in view of Bahler (US 7,818,888).
As to claim 1, Hofer teaches: a construction material marking device (Title: Measuring and Marking Apparatus. The device marks wood, which is a construction material) comprising: a roller (measuring wheel 11), a mark discharge assembly mechanically connected to the roller (the discharge assembly includes at least actuator 12, see Hofer Fig 5, below), wherein the mark discharge assembly is configured to ... dispense a marking material at predetermined intervals in an interrupted marking line (Hofer teaches at col 2 lines 7-12: “A dog carried on a face surface of the wheel communicates with the actuator carried in actuator slots on each rotation of wheel to cause dispersal of marking material onto surface being measured for marking the distance between marks is equal to the effective circumference of the measuring wheel.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
322
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hofer does not teach the remaining structure. However, in the field of aerosol marking devices, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for structure useful for ensuring the marking device follows a straight line, including structure for riding along the edge of the construction material.
See Bahler which teaches an edge rail (side plate 18) that is straight (as illustrated) and extends longitudinally to ride in contact with a straight edge of a construction material (this is an intended use. See Bahler Col 4 lines 21-22: “In use, the vertical guide plate 18 of the tool is initially placed flat against the edge that is to be duplicated.”); a marking arm (beam 12) that adjustably extends laterally from the edge rail which slidably receives the marking arm (Col 2 lines 53-58: “The beam 12 consists essentially of a rectilinear piece 34 of square tubular stock. The mounting piece 30 of the tracking head 10 is received in an open end 36 of the tubular piece 34, in a telescopic manner, and a pin 38 is adjacently mounted for engagement in one of the holes 32 formed along the length of the piece 30.” The term “telescopic” indicates lateral adjustability.); a marker mount (marking head 14) disposed fixedly upon the marking arm at a distal end (as illustrated), the marker mount structured to hold a marker (Col 3 lines 48-50: “As is also seen in FIG. 6A, a removable marking implement 80 (depicted in phantom line) is received in the aligned circular openings 64 of the collars 62.”); and wherein positionally adjusting the marking arm perpendicular to the edge rail establishes a lateral offset of the marker mount (this is an intended use of the device which Bahler is capable of performing. Bahler teaches at Col 1 lines 48-51: “The marking head is mounted on the beam for positioning along its length, and means is provided for affixing the marking head at selected distances away from the tracking head.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Hofer to include the edge-guide structure of Bahler. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the marks of Hofer follow a straight line. A person having ordinary skill would appreciate that the hand-held tool of Hofer is susceptible to user error by the introduction of wobble resulting in marks that are unevenly spaced. As the purpose of Hofer is to provide for evenly spaced marks, the modification of Bahler’s edge guide into Hofer would have provided a way to ensure a straight line (by following the edge of the material) and thus ensure marks are evenly spaced.
Hofer in view of Bahler accordingly teach: [the roller is] mounted to the marking arm (Bahler’s marking arm holds Hofer’s roller, as described above); wherein the roller rotates about an axis perpendicular to the edge rail (Bahler the roller rotates about an axis perpendicular to the handle 21. Note the handle 83/16 of Bahler is perpendicular to the guide plate 18); [the mark discharge assembly is configured to] activate the marker held by the marker mount (Hofer’s discharge assembly activates the marker as described above. Hofer’s marker is held in Bahler’s marker mount); [the interrupted marking line] is laterally offset and parallel with the edge rail (as shown in the configuration of Bahler, the marker mount, and thus the implied mark is offset and parallel with the side plate 18).
As to claim 2, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, wherein the marker is activated periodically for a predetermined interval by the mark discharge assembly in response to each rotation of the roller (this is functional language. See MPEP § 2114. The marking assembly of Hofer is capable of this. See Hofer col 2 lines 7-12: “A dog carried on a face surface of the wheel communicates with the actuator carried in actuator slots on each rotation of wheel to cause dispersal of marking material onto surface being measured for marking the distance between marks is equal to the effective circumference of the measuring wheel.”).
As to claim 3, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, but does not teach the mark discharge assembly is mounted between the roller and the marker on the marking arm.
Rather, the discharge assembly of Hofer appears to be in-line, not offset, with the roller. Thus it appears a drop-in replacement of the marking implement 80 by the marking assembly of Hofer would correspondingly also have the roller in-line with the discharge assembly.
However, making the roller of Hofer to be offset (either to the left or to the right) as compared to the discharge assembly does not constitute a patentable jump. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have arranged the mark discharge assembly mounted between the roller and the marker on the marking arm. The rearrangement of the roller to one side or another is instead a mere change in shape which does not materially affect the function of the device, nor would require any special mechanical skill. There is legal precedent for the prima facie obvious change of shape. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
As to claim 4, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, further comprising: a detent mechanism disposed upon the edge rail (Bahler Col 2 lines 56-58: “a pin 38 is adjacently mounted for engagement in one of the holes 32 formed along the length of the piece 30.”) and structured to adjustably lock the marking arm at one of a plurality of offset distances between the marker mount and the edge rail (Bahler Col 2 lines 50-52 teaches: “A number of pin-engaging holes 32 (only two of which are visible) are formed in the mounting bar 30 at spaced locations along its length.” The “spaced locations” meet the claimed “offset distances.”).
Bahler in view of Hofer doesn’t specify: wherein the plurality of offset distances comprises 12 inches, 16 inches, and 24 inches.
However, Bahler is concerned with marking pavers, which are of the order of magnitude in the range of 12, 16, and 24 inches.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide offset distances of 12, 16, and 24 inches because Applicant has not disclosed that these specific offset distances provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem that is not also contemplated by Bahler. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Bahler’s tracer, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the implied offset distances taught by Bahler or the claimed 12, 16, 24 inch offset distances because any reasonable dimensions would perform the same function of tracing a construction plan equally well considering the typical needs of construction tracing.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Hofer in view of Bahler to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
As to claim 5, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, wherein the roller is a wheel having a circumference of between 2 inches to 12 inches, the circumference based on a predetermined interval between a plurality of marks that form the interrupted marking line upon a surface of the construction material (Hofer Col 3 lines 27-31 teaches, “Positioning of axle holes 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d in wheel forks 23 aids use of measuring wheel 11 having varying circumferential lengths, commonly 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 24 inches respectively which correspond to common lengths of firewood.”).
As to claim 9, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, but does not teach the marking arm comprises: an aperture disposed through the marking arm, wherein the marker that is activated directs a marking material downwardly through the aperture onto a surface of the construction material to form a plurality of marks that correspond to fastener placement intervals.
Rather, Bahler teaches the marking arm (beam 12) is a beam, not a platform through which an aperture is required for marking. Instead, the beam 12 includes a marking head 14 which surrounds the marker and has an aperture through which a marking material is directed downwards onto the surface of the construction material.
The choice of a platform requiring an aperture rather than a beam having a marking head does not represent a patentable jump. That is, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for an arm requiring an aperture through which the marker of Hofer is directed downward. Examiner notes that supporting structures are well known in the mechanical arts to take a wide variety of forms, form beams to sleds to platforms. The choice of one kind of support surface (one requiring an aperture) rather than another (a beam where the marker’s marks flow adjacently rather than therethrough) would have been a matter of ordinary engineering skill at the time the invention was effectively filed. There is legal precedent for the prima facie obviousness of a change of shape or proportion. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
As to claim 10, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, wherein the mark discharge assembly comprises: a nozzle trigger member (Hofer’s actuator 12 has a surface which contacts the nozzle. This surface is interpreted as the nozzle trigger member) mounted to the marking arm (the actuator 12 is mounted for actuation), the nozzle trigger member structured to receive a nozzle of the marker (Hofer’s nozzle 42) held by the marker mount and to move between an activated position (illustrated in Hofer Fig 5) and an inactive position (HoHofer Fig 4).
As to claim 12, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 10, wherein the mark discharge assembly comprises: an actuator (Hofer’s actuator 12 has an elongate leg 41, see Fig 3) mounted to the marking arm (the elongate leg 41 is mounted to the actuator 12), the actuator structured to move the nozzle trigger member from the activated position to the inactive position (the elongate leg 41 interacts with the dog 36 which transmits rotational force through the actuator and causes the actuator to be in the active or inactive positions.).
As to claim 18, Hofer teaches: a construction material marking device (Title: Measuring and Marking Apparatus. The device marks wood, which is a construction material) comprising: a roller (measuring wheel 11), and a mark discharge assembly mechanically connected to the roller (the discharge assembly includes at least actuator 12, see Hofer Fig 5, below), wherein the mark discharge assembly is configured to ... dispense a marking material at predetermined intervals in an interrupted marking line (Hofer teaches at col 2 lines 7-12: “A dog carried on a face surface of the wheel communicates with the actuator carried in actuator slots on each rotation of wheel to cause dispersal of marking material onto surface being measured for marking the distance between marks is equal to the effective circumference of the measuring wheel.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
322
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hofer does not teach the remaining structure. However, in the field of aerosol marking devices, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for structure useful for ensuring the marking device follows a straight line, including structure for riding along the edge of the construction material.
See Bahler which teaches an edge rail (side plate 18) that is straight (as illustrated) and extends longitudinally to ride in contact with a straight edge of a construction material (this is an intended use. See Bahler Col 4 lines 21-22: “In use, the vertical guide plate 18 of the tool is initially placed flat against the edge that is to be duplicated.”); a marking arm (beam 12) that extends laterally from the edge rail (Col 2 lines 53-58: “The beam 12 consists essentially of a rectilinear piece 34 of square tubular stock. The mounting piece 30 of the tracking head 10 is received in an open end 36 of the tubular piece 34, in a telescopic manner, and a pin 38 is adjacently mounted for engagement in one of the holes 32 formed along the length of the piece 30.” The term “telescopic” indicates lateral extension.); a marker mount (marking head 14) disposed fixedly upon the marking arm at a distal end (as illustrated), the marker mount structured to hold a marker (Col 3 lines 48-50: “As is also seen in FIG. 6A, a removable marking implement 80 (depicted in phantom line) is received in the aligned circular openings 64 of the collars 62.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Hofer to include the edge-guide structure of Bahler. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the marks of Hofer follow a straight line. A person having ordinary skill would appreciate that the hand-held tool of Hofer is susceptible to user error by the introduction of wobble resulting in marks that are unevenly spaced. As the purpose of Hofer is to provide for evenly spaced marks, the modification of Bahler’s edge guide into Hofer would have provided a way to ensure a straight line (by following the edge of the material) and thus ensure marks are evenly spaced.
Hofer in view of Bahler accordingly teach: [the roller is] mounted to the marking arm (Bahler’s marking arm holds Hofer’s roller, as described above); wherein the roller rotates about an axis perpendicular to the edge rail (Bahler the roller rotates about an axis perpendicular to the handle 21. Note the handle 83/16 of Bahler is perpendicular to the guide plate 18); [the mark discharge assembly is configured to] activate the marker held by the marker mount (Hofer’s discharge assembly activates the marker as described above. Hofer’s marker is held in Bahler’s marker mount); [the interrupted marking line] is laterally offset and parallel with the edge rail (as shown in the configuration of Bahler, the marker mount, and thus the implied mark is offset and parallel with the side plate 18).
As to claim 19, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 18, wherein the edge rail slidably receives the marking arm (Bahler Col 2 lines 53-58: “The beam 12 consists essentially of a rectilinear piece 34 of square tubular stock. The mounting piece 30 of the tracking head 10 is received in an open end 36 of the tubular piece 34, in a telescopic manner, and a pin 38 is adjacently mounted for engagement in one of the holes 32 formed along the length of the piece 30.” The term “telescopic” indicates lateral adjustability.).
As to claim 20, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 18, wherein the marking arm is structured to be positionally adjusted relative to the edge rail to establish a lateral offset of the marker mount (Bahler Col 2 lines 50-52 teaches: “A number of pin-engaging holes 32 (only two of which are visible) are formed in the mounting bar 30 at spaced locations along its length.” The “spaced locations” meet the claimed “lateral offset.”).
As to claims 21 and 22, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 20, but does not teach the lateral offset corresponds with a wall stud spacing for fastener placement or wherein the lateral offset between the marker mount and the edge rail is 16 inches.
However, Bahler is concerned with marking pavers, which are of the order of magnitude in the range of 16 inches.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lateral offset distance of 16 inches because Applicant has not disclosed that these specific offset distances provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem that is not also contemplated by Bahler. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Bahler’s tracer, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the implied lateral offset distance taught by Bahler or the claimed 16 inch offset because any reasonable dimensions would perform the same function of tracing a construction plan equally well considering the typical needs of construction tracing.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Bahler in view of Hofer to obtain the invention as specified in claims 20 and 21 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
As to claim 23, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 18, further comprising: a handle fastened to the edge rail (Bahler teaches a handle 83/16 is attached to the beam 12 which is indirectly attached to the side plate 18. The angle bracket 22 directly attached to the side plate 18 is also graspable, and capable of operating as a handle.) for an operator to maintain the edge rail against the straight edge of the construction material while guiding the marking device (both the handle 83/16 and the angle bracket 22 are capable of being acted upon to perform this intended use).
As to claim 24, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 1, wherein the marking material dispensed at predetermined intervals corresponds to fastener placement positions based on a predetermined measurement (Hofer in view of Bahler makes marks at predetermined intervals (an artisan chooses the size of the roller). The claim limitation pertaining to whether the marks pertain to fastener placement is merely the intended use of the marks produced by the claimed product. See MPEP § 2114. “The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.” Examiner asserts the use of the marks does not differentiate the apparatus which made the marks from the prior art.).
As to claim 25, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 18, wherein the marking material dispensed at predetermined intervals guides placement of fasteners into construction material (The claim limitation pertaining to the use of the marks to guide fastener placement is merely the intended use of the marks produced by the claimed product. See MPEP § 2114. “The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.” Examiner asserts the use of the marks does not differentiate the apparatus which made the marks from the prior art.).
As to claim 26, Hofer in view of Bahler teaches the construction material marking device of claim 25, wherein the interrupted marking line corresponds to a centerline of a building stud (See MPEP § 2114. “The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.” The device of Hofer in view of Bahler is capable of forming an interrupted marking line which corresponds to a centerline of a building stud.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-15, filed 24 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Bahler in view of Hofer have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Examiner agrees that the reasons for why an artisan would have found it obvious to have modified Bahler in view of Hofer are not adequately stated.
Examiner provides a rejection which is not a new grounds of rejection. Examiner changed the order of references in the statement of rejection, but relied on the same teachings of those references. See MPEP § 706.07(a) which points to MPEP § 1207.03(a). Notably, the obviousness statement now clearly lays out the motivation for an artisan to have modified the interrupted marking device of Hofer to include the edge-following structure of Bahler. See Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 18 above. In summary, Hofer is a hand-held tool which is susceptible to making non-straight lines, and thus forming unevenly spaced marks. By providing the edge-following structure of Bahler, an artisan practicing Hofer would have ensured the marks are evenly spaced.
In view of the newly stated reasons for combination, Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-20 are moot.
As noted by Applicant, arguments that apply to claim 1 also apply to claim 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner changed the order of references in the statement of rejection, but relied on the same teachings of those references. This is not considered new grounds of rejection as described in MPEP § 1207.03(a) II. 4.
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 JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 10 March 2026