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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on June 17, 2026, claims 1, 3, and 6-13 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated March 17, 2026, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom on April 4, 2023. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB202304974 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The amendment to the drawings filed June 17, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Although “an interior honeycomb structure” was previously disclosed in the written description and the claims as originally filed, new Fig. 1F introduces new matter. For example, the new figure further illustrates a shape and size of a honeycomb structure as well as a distribution, arrangement, and orientation of the cells within a honeycomb structure. None of these features were disclosed in the application as originally filed.
Although “flaps” were previously disclosed in the written description and the claims as originally filed, new Fig. 1G introduces new matter. For example, the new figure further illustrates a position of the flaps relative to what appears to be the unlabeled second part and the opening of the second part. Additionally, the new figure also illustrates at least an extension of the slaps across the entire opening of the unlabeled part, a direction of extension of the flaps, and an apparent point of division between the flaps across the opening. None of these features were disclosed in the application as originally filed.
Although a “shoe”, “boot”, and/or “item of footwear” incorporating the claimed device were previously disclosed in the written description and the claims as originally filed, new Fig. 13C introduces new matter. For example, the new figure further illustrates a shape, appearance, and style of the shoe/boot/footwear. Additionally, the new figure also illustrates a sole structure having a jagged or peaked middle portion positioned between relatively flat forefoot and heel portions. None of these features were disclosed in the application as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 2A, 2C, 8, 14A, 17, and 18 each appear to show an improper exploded view. The exploded view should include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts.
Specification – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because at lines 2 and 3, “comprising” should read “including”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are 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 (i.e., “means”) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a fixing means” as recited in claim 1
“means for attaching” as recited in claim 9
“the fixing means” as recited in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 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 the limitation “the first magnet” at lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, in light of Applicant’s amendments specifying first and second magnets while maintaining the limitation of “a magnet” at line 3, it is unclear if the first magnet and the magnet of line 3 are meant to refer to the same magnet or separate magnets. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If meant to refer to the same magnet, it is suggested that the limitation at line 3 instead read “a first magnet”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the fixing means is an additional part” at line 2. It is unclear what is meant by an “additional” part, as the fixing means were already introduced and positively recited in claim 1. It is unclear to what other parts (recited or unrecited) the now claimed additional part is meant to be considered “additional”. Is the claim further defining the previously introduced fixing means or attempting to introduce some other fixing means? Although, Applicant generally points to various paragraphs of the disclosure for support, Applicant does not provide further clarification with respect to the language of the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. As best can be understood, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein the fixing means is a part”. In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant should clearly recite and explain the claim limitation meaning intended by Applicant or remove the claim limitation in response to this rejection. If some particular structure from an embodiment of the specification is intended to be claimed, additional structural limitations should be added to the claim to ensure a complete understanding of Applicant’s claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 12-13, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0143054 to Yoon et al. (hereinafter, “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a device for impact protection in sports activities (See Yoon, Figs. 16-18B; segmented sport equipment (100) capable of impact protection; [0146]), the device comprising; a first part having a cavity housing a magnet (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; lower part of shell (104) having cavity housing magnet (120); Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a second part comprising a through hole (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; upper part of shell (104) having opening (116) into recess (112)); an intermediate part comprising an elongate section on one end and a cavity housing a second magnet on an obverse end (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; panel (106) having an elongate section extending up from flange (108) at one end, and magnet (110) on the opposite end; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein, in use, a position of the first part in relation to the second part is fixed by a fixing means (See Yoon Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; when in a deployed position, a position of first and second parts is fixed relative to one another near flange (108) engaging lip (114) of opening (116)) and the intermediate part is slideably positioned between the first part and the second part due to the position of the elongate section in the through hole (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; panel (106) is slideably positioned between first and second parts due to elongate section positioned in opening (116)), and the first magnet and the second magnet face each other and are of a same polarity, such that application of an impact force to an exterior of the device causes the intermediate part to slide towards the first part until a repellent magnetic force of the first magnet and the second magnet overcomes the impact force exerted on the intermediate part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; magnets (110, 120) face one another and are capable of having a repelling force therebetween such that application of a hypothetical impact force to an exterior causes panel (106) to slide towards first part of shell (104) until the hypothetical impact force is overcome by the repelling force of the magnets; abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon
Regarding claim 2, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches a padding layer which is attached to the first part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon above; padding (134) attached to first part of shell (104)).
Regarding claim 3, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein sidewalls of at least one of the first part, the intermediate part or the second part are inclined at an angle to a major surface of the at least one of the first part, the intermediate part, or the second part (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon above; at least internal sidewalls of first part of shell (104) defining cavity for magnet (120) are inclined at an angle to an upper surface of the first part defining the bottom of cavity (112)).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the second part comprises flaps (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon above; lips (114) formed on second part of shell (104) around opening (116); [0151]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are attached to the first part and the intermediate part, respectively, through means of an adhesive, a screw, an interference fit or a brace (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; magnets (110, 120) attached at least via adhesive; [0097], [0156]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the first magnet and the second magnet comprise a plurality of magnets which are arranged in a pattern (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; magnets (110, 120) arranged in stacked pattern aligned with one another).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the device is curved in order to conform to contours of a body part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; device is curved and capable of conforming to the hypothetical contours of a hypothetical body part of a hypothetical user).
Regarding claim 10, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches an item of clothing comprising the device according to claim 1 (See Yoon, Figs. 16-17; segmented sport equipment (100) incorporating the device of Yoon may be an item of clothing; [0146]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches a helmet comprising the device according to claim 1 (See Yoon, Figs. 16-17; segmented sport equipment (100) incorporating the device of Yoon may be a helmet; [0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches a neck brace comprising the device according to claim 1 (See Yoon, Figs. 16-17; segmented sport equipment (100) incorporating the device of Yoon may be neck protector; [0146]) and wherein the fixing means is an additional part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; fixing means flange (108) is a part as best can be understood; Examiner again notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); See rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion).
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.
Claim 4, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 6,247,186 to Huang (hereinafter, “Huang”).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein at least one of the first part, the intermediate part or the second part comprise an interior honeycomb structure.
However, Huang, in a related impact protective device art, is directed to a helmet having a ventilation arrangement in an impact resistant layer (See Huang, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Huang teaches wherein at least one of the first part, the intermediate part or the second part comprise an interior honeycomb structure (See Huang, Figs. 1-4; interior paths (24) on form a honeycomb shape on inner surface; Col. 2, lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the honeycomb shaped, mesh-like paths on the interior surface of the first part of the protective device of Yoon in order to promote ventilation on an interior of the protective device (See Huang, Col. 2, lines 18-35; abstract).
Claim 9, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to a means for attaching the device to a body part.
However, Yoon, in other embodiments, discusses the use of straps in the segmented sport equipment. More specifically, Yoon also teaches a means for attaching the device to a body part (See Yoon, Figs. 6-7; inner strap system capable of attaching a device to a hypothetical body part of a hypothetical user; [0099]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the inner strap system disclosed by the other embodiments of Yoon in the segmented sport equipment of Yoon as discussed above for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, adjustably attaching or securing the segmented sport equipment to another surface such as a user either directly or indirectly via an intervening protective structure.
Claim 11, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0277158 to Hyde et al. (hereinafter, “Hyde”).
Regarding claim 11, although Yoon discusses the device generally as well as a plurality of varying articles into which the device can be incorporated (See Yoon, [0146]), Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to an item of footwear comprising the device according to claim 1.
However, Hyde, in a related impact protective device art, is directed to a system for protecting the body that can be incorporated into various wearable articles (See Hyde, Figs. 13A-23; abstract). More specifically, Hyde teaches an item of footwear comprising the device according to claim 1 (See Hyde, Fig. 22; protective modules (2204, 2206) are incorporated into footgear (2202); [0299]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the impact protective device of Yoon into an item of footwear as disclosed by Hyde for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, protecting the toes of a user from impacting object (See Hyde, [0299]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Yoon does not teach the claimed three-part mechanical device in which an intermediate part, having an elongate section received in a through hole, slides between a first part and second part in response to an impact, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, and as shown in annotated Fig. 18B of Yoon (reproduced below), Yoon includes first, second, and intermediate parts as claimed. Furthermore, the intermediate part has an elongate section received in a through hole of the second part, the intermediate part being configured to slide between first and second parts in response to a hypothetical impact (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B). See current grounds of rejection above for additional discussion.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the present recited features of Applicant’s invention are arranged so that the intermediate part is itself an independent mechanical component and that Applicant’s specification describes that the intermediate part is placed between the first and second parts before the first and second parts are positioned or fixed together, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., an independent mechanical component and an apparent assembly order of the various components of the device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That said, the equivalent intermediate part of Yoon includes an elongate section received in a through hole and is capable of sliding between the first and second parts in response to a hypothetical impact as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that Examiner’s annotated figure of Yoon (i.e., annotated Fig. 18B of Yoon) that labels first, second, and intermediate parts creates disclosure that is absent from the reference and results in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the interpretation of the prior art is in response to the broad language used in the claims. In particular, Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Indeed, in light of the use of such a broad term, the structure of Yoon can be interpreted as meeting the claim limitations as discussed above and as shown with respect to annotated Fig. 18B of Yoon. If Applicant intends for the first and second parts to be separate and distinct structures, it is suggested that the claim language be amended to recite as much in order to overcome Yoon as applied in the current grounds of rejection.
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that Yoon does not teach an intermediate part as claimed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection, Yoon teaches an intermediate panel (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon; panel (106)) having an elongate section extending up from flange (108) on one end), a cavity housing a magnet on an obverse end (magnet (110) housed in cavity on opposite end from elongate section), a sliding relationship governed by the elongate section being positioned in the through hole of the second part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon; panel (106) is slideably positioned between first and second parts due to elongate section positioned in opening (116)), and movement of the intermediate part toward the first part in response to impact, resisted by repellent magnetic force (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon; magnets (110, 120) face one another and are capable of having a repelling force therebetween such that application of a hypothetical impact force to an exterior causes panel (106) to slide towards first part of shell (104) until the hypothetical impact force is overcome by the repelling force of the magnets; abstract).
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Yoon and Huang to arrive at the interior honeycomb structure of claim 4, Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the honeycomb shaped, mesh-like paths on the interior surface of the first part of the protective device of Yoon in order to promote ventilation on an interior of the protective device (See Huang, Col. 2, lines 18-35; abstract).
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that Applicant’s claimed invention is different from Yoon’s deployable segmented helmet/panel system with respect to the rejection of claim 9, again Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the embodiment used to illustrate the deployed state of the segmented sport equipment of Yoon in Figs. 16-17 is a helmet, the segmented sport equipment (100) disclosed by Yoon, as relied upon in the current grounds of rejection, is not necessarily limited to only a helmet, but can also be applied in various other embodiments. Indeed, Yoon at [0146] explicitly states that the deployable segmented sport equipment (100) can be any sport equipment worn by a user that receives impact.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Yoon and Hyde with respect to claim 11, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on the previous arguments directed to Yoon failing to teach the limitations of claim 1 which were already addressed above.
In response to Applicant’s various remarks regarding the examination of related applications in other countries and by other searching authorities, Examiner notes Applicant’s recognition that foreign prosecution outcomes are not binding on the USPTO.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights