DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
The claim amendments filed on August 27, 2025 have been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-9 and new reissue claims 10-12 are subject to examination.
Objection to Amendment - Formalities
The claim amendments filed on August 27, 2025 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and/or (g). All amendments must be made relative to the patent claims, which are in effect as of the date of filing the reissue application. Matter to be omitted must be enclosed in single brackets. Matter to be added must be underlined.
The claim amendments filed on August 27, 2025 are improper because:
In claim 2, “Claim 1” (l. 1) should read “claim 1” in order to properly reflect the patent claim.
In claim 3, “Claim 3” (l. 1) should read “claim 2” in order to properly reflect the patent claim.
In claim 4, “Claim 3” (l. 1) should read “claim 2” in order to properly reflect the patent claim.
In claim 5, “Claim 3” (l. 1) should read “claim 2” in order to properly reflect the patent claim.
In claim 6, “Claim 6” (l. 1) should read “claim 5” in order to properly reflect the patent claim.
New claims 10-12 must be underlined in their entirety.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(a)-(g) in response to this Office action.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,745,311 B2, which issued from US Application No. 16/173,227. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of US Application No. 15/985,507 as filed on October 29, 2018. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during the examination of the instant reissue application or during the earlier-concluded examination of US Application No. 16/173,227 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”
35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
New Matter Added During Earlier-Concluded Examination
New matter was improperly added to the disclosure during the earlier examination of Application No. 16/173,227. See the detailed explanation that follows.
The amendment filed on August 24, 2022 added new claim 10 (later renumbered as patent claim 9), with the final paragraph of claim 10 reciting “a snap fastener coupling with the fastening mechanism for compressing the foam…” According to the original disclosure, the fastening mechanism 50 has/includes the snap fastener 54. See col. 1, ll. 65-66 and col. 3, ll. 26-27 of the patent specification, and claim 3 as originally filed in US Application No. 16/173,227. Further, according to the original disclosure, the fastening mechanism 50 holds the center portion of the slit foam body in a compressed state. See col. 1, ll. 56-59 of the patent specification. More specifically, the remainder of the fastening mechanism 50—aside from the spindle 14—is used to compress the foam body. See col. 2, ll. 30-35 of the patent specification. There is no support in the original disclosure for the snap fastener “coupling with the fastening mechanism for compressing the foam”.
For these reasons, the amendments made in US Application No. 16/173,227 violated the prohibition of new matter under 35 USC 132(a). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
New Matter Added During Present Examination
The amendment filed in the instant reissue application on August 27, 2025 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) for introducing new matter into the disclosure and into the application for reissue.
New reissue claim 10 recites “a snap fastener coupling with the fastening mechanism for compressing the foam” (ll. 9-10). This constitutes new matter for the reasons explained above.
New reissue claim 10 recites “a fastening mechanism at a first end of the monolithic body of foam for holding the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state along the rotational axis” (ll. 4-6). According to the original disclosure, and as explained above, the fastening mechanism 50 includes the snap fastener 54, and the fastening mechanism 50 (apart from the spindle 14) functions to hold the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state. There is no support in the original disclosure for the fastening mechanism being “at a first end of the monolithic body of foam” for holding the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state along the rotational axis. As shown in Fig. 3, the fastening mechanism 50 is not at one of the ends 88 of the compressed foam body.
New reissue claim 11 recites “a snap fastener for holding the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state at one end of the monolithic body along the rotational axis” (ll. 4-6). According to the original disclosure, and as explained above, the fastening mechanism 50 includes the snap fastener 54, and the fastening mechanism 50 (apart from the spindle 14) functions to hold the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state. There is no support in the original disclosure for the snap fastener holding the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state “at one end of the monolithic body along the rotational axis”. As shown in Fig. 3, the snap fastener 54 is not at one of the ends 88 of the compressed foam body.
For these reasons, the amendments filed on August 27, 2025 violate the prohibition of new matter under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
OBJECTION 1: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on August 27, 2025 is defective because it fails to identify an original patent claim that the instant broadening reissue application seeks to broaden. See 37 CFR 1.175(b) and MPEP 1414-1414.01. As required by 37 CFR 1.175(b), for an application that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
OBJECTION 2: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on August 27, 2025 is defective because it fails to properly and specifically identify at least one error which can be relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
In the present case, the declaration’s error statement explains that new claims 10-12 are added, with these new claims requiring fingers that define a hemispherical shape. This statement fails to properly identify an error which can be relied upon to support this reissue application. As explained below, new claims 10-12 do not comply with the original-patent requirement. Therefore, the addition of such claims does not constitute a proper basis for reissue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. See the explanation above.
GROUND 2: Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because they introduce new matter into the application for reissue. See the explanation above. Claim 12 is included because of its dependency.
GROUND 3: Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for failing to comply with the original patent requirement. See MPEP 1412.01.
As explained in MPEP 1412.01:
The reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent, as required by 35 U.S.C. 251. The entire disclosure, not just the claim(s), is considered in determining what the patentee objectively intended as the invention. See In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 21 USPQ2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and In re Rowand, 526 F.2d 558, 187 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1975).
The patentee’s “intent to claim” is analogous to the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). See In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). However, the original patent standard and the written description requirement are not the same. Where the written description requirement is based on what the skilled artisan would have understood was within the possession of the inventor, recent Federal Circuit case law indicates that the original patent requirement requires something more.
A claim submitted in reissue may be rejected under the original patent clause of 35 USC 251 if the original specification demonstrates, to one skilled in the art, an absence of disclosure sufficient to indicate that a patentee could have claimed the subject matter. The essential inquiry is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentee. See In re Amos.
The original patent requirement is not satisfied when the patent only discloses one invention (e.g., a particular class of jet injectors), as evidenced by the clearly repetitive use of a descriptive term or classifier (e.g., jet injector) throughout the specification, but the reissue claims recite a broader/different invention (e.g., a generic injector encompassing a non-jet injector). See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Where a new invention is sought by reissue, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention. See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, claims drawn to an invention comprising a newly claimed combination of features, which were only disclosed in the original patent as suggested alternatives (and not as a single combination), or which were only disclosed as part of the original invention and not as an invention separate from the original invention, would not satisfy the original patent requirement. See Antares Pharma Inc.
When the written description and drawings fail to disclose that a feature required by the patent claims is an optional feature of the invention, omission of such feature from the reissue claims fails to satisfy the original patent requirement. See Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In this case, the original disclosure repeatedly states that the invention comprises a slit foam body that is compressed to form a spherocylinder. See, for example, col. 1, ll. 14-19, col. 1, ll. 56-60, col. 2, ll. 27-48, and col. 4, ll. 3-15 of the patent specification. Further, the claims as originally filed in US Application No. 16/173,227 were limited to a slit foam body compressed to form a spherocylinder.
New reissue claims 10-12 do not require a slit foam body that is compressed to form a spherocylinder. As a result, claims 10-12 are not directed to the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent. The specification does not clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed buffing and polishing member having a “hemi-spherical shape” as a separate invention. Thus, claims 10-12 fail to comply with the original patent requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claim 12 is included because of its dependency.
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an uncompressed monolithic body of foam material” (l. 3) having “an uncompressed state” (l. 7), but additionally recites “compressible foam material” (l. 1) and “the slit foam body in a compressed state” (l. 10). The claim is indefinite because the foam body cannot be both “uncompressed” and “compressed”. The uncompressed limitations do not accurately characterize the invention in its complete/final form; rather, they improperly define an intermediate state that does not describe the invention in its complete/final form.
In each of claims 1 and 7-9, the term “the slits on circumferential spaced planes…” (ll. 4-5) lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim previously recites the singular term “a slit” (l. 3).
In each of claims 1 and 7-9, the recitation “toward and less than a distance to the rotational axis” (l. 6) appears to merely duplicate the prior recitation “toward and less than a distance to a rotational axis of the body” (l. 4). Such duplication renders the scope of the claim unclear.
Each of claims 1 and 7-9 is incomplete because it requires the definition of “a plurality of foam fingers” (l. 6) while only requiring “the slits on circumferential spaced planes…” (ll. 4-5). According to the disclosure, both the spiral slit 22 and the radial slits 28 are required in order to define the foam fingers. Since the spiral slit is not required by claim 1, the claim is incomplete.
In each of claims 1 and 7-9, the term “the uncompressed outer ends of the foam finger” (claim 1, l. 11; claims 7-9, ll. 8-9) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, this term does not appear to accurately characterize the invention in its complete/final form for reasons similar to those given above.
In each of claims 1 and 7-9, the term “the foam finger” (claim 1, l. 11; claims 7-9, l. 9) is indefinite because plural “foam fingers” (l. 6) are previously recited. It is unclear whether “the foam finger” refers to a particular one of the fingers, or all of the fingers.
In each of claims 2 and 8, the recitation “the fastening mechanism further comprising a stem with a head portion, having a diameter larger…” (claim 2, ll. 1-3; claim 8, ll. 10-11) is indefinite. Due to the presence of the comma, it is unclear whether “having a diameter larger…” refers to the fastening mechanism, or the stem, or the head portion of the stem.
Claims 3 and 6 are indefinite because they depend from themselves.
Each of claims 7-9 recites “an uncompressed monolithic body of foam material” (l. 3), but additionally recites “compressible foam material” (l. 1) and “the slit foam body in a compressed state” (l. 8). These claims are indefinite for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
In claim 8, the recitation “having a diameter larger than a diameter of a bore second diameter portion” (l. 11) is indefinite. Due to the use of the ordinal number “second”, the claim implies that there must be some bore “first” diameter portion. However, no “first” portion is recited in the claim.
Each of claims 10 and 11 recites “an uncompressed monolithic body of foam material” (l. 3), but additionally recites “compressible foam material” (l. 1) and “the foam body in a compressed state” (claim 10, ll. 5-6; claim 11, l. 5). These claims are indefinite for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
In claim 10, the terms “the rotational axis” (l. 6), “the uncompressed outer ends of the fingers” (ll. 6-7) and “the second end of the monolithic body of foam” (ll. 7-8) lack proper antecedent basis. Concerning “the rotational axis”, the preamble recites “a rotatable axis”, but the claim does not recite “a rotational axis” of the foam body.
In claim 10, the recitation “such that the uncompressed outer ends of the fingers define a hemi-spherical shape on the second end of the monolithic body of foam” (ll. 6-7) is indefinite. This recitation suggests and/or allows for all of the fingers to define a hemispherical shape on an end of the foam body. As a result, the recitation fails to accurately characterize the disclosed invention in which only some of the outer ends of the fingers define the hemispherical ends 88 of the compressed foam body.
In claim 11, the terms “the rotational axis” (l. 6) and “the uncompressed outer ends of the fingers” (l. 6) lack proper antecedent basis. Concerning “the rotational axis”, the preamble recites “a rotatable axis”, but the claim does not recite “a rotational axis” of the foam body.
In claim 12, the term “the first and second flanges” (l. 4) lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim does not recite “a first flange”.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Chitayat et al.”
US Design Patent No. D714,065 S
“Cuervo”
US Patent No. 3,231,921
“Heyer et al.”
US Patent No. 4,199,835
“Levy-Hawes”
US Patent No. 2,266,427
“McLain ‘458”
US Design Patent No. D560,458 S
“McLain ‘491”
US Publication No. 2005/0188491 A1
“Visman et al.”
US Patent No. 3,204,277
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art listed above is not relied upon to reject any claim but is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
McLain ‘491 teaches a buffing and polishing member formed from a cylindrical, monolithic body of foam material having a spiral slit and plural radial slits that define foam fingers. A fastening mechanism extends through a central bore of the foam body and holds the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state such the outer ends of the foam fingers define a generally spherical shape.
Chitayat et al. teaches a member capable of use in buffing and polishing, with the member formed from a cylindrical stack of plural layers of compressible material, wherein the plural layers are slit to define fingers. A fastening mechanism extends through central bores of the plural layers and holds the center portion of the stack in a compressed state such the outer ends of the fingers define a generally spherical shape.
Levy-Hawes teaches a member capable of use in buffing and polishing, with the member formed from a cylindrical pile (stack) of plural layers of compressible material. A fastening mechanism extends through central bores of the plural layers and holds the center portion of the pile in a compressed state such the outer ends of the plural layers define a generally spherical shape.
Visman et al. teaches a member capable of use in buffing and polishing, with the member formed from a stack of plural layers of compressible material, wherein the plural layers are cut to define finger-like lobes. A snap fastener includes a male snap that extends through central bores of the plural layers and interlocks with a female snap to hold the center portion of the stack in a compressed state.
Cuervo teaches a member capable of use in buffing and polishing, with the member formed from a cylindrical, monolithic body of foam material having grooves (slits) that define foam projections. A handle is received in a larger diameter portion of a central bore of the foam body and is secured therein by adhesive. A fastening mechanism extends through a smaller diameter portion of the central bore and holds the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state such the outer ends of the foam projections define a generally hemispherical shape at one end of the compressed foam body.
Heyer et al. teaches a member capable of use in buffing and polishing, with the member formed from a stack of plural layers of compressible material, wherein the plural layers are cut to define finger-like lobes. A fastening mechanism extends through central bores of the plural layers and holds the center portion of the stack in a compressed state.
McLain ‘458 teaches a buffing and polishing member having fingers that define a generally spherical shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are subject to rejection (see above) but are considered to recite allowable subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 7-9, the prior art teaches many of the components of the claimed invention, but the prior art fails to teach or suggest the particular combination required by each of these independent claims.
With respect to claim 1, McLain ‘491 teaches a monolithic foam body formed with slits defining foam fingers, and a fastening mechanism that extends through a central bore of the foam body to hold the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state such the outer ends of the foam fingers define a generally spherical shape. Cuervo teaches a central bore with first and second diameter portions, with a handle positioned in the larger diameter portion, and with a fastener positioned in both diameter portions. However, it would not have been obvious to modify McLain ‘491 in view of the teachings of Cuervo because the skilled artisan would not have viewed the handle construction of Cuervo as compatible with the rotating spindle/shaft construction of McLain ‘491. Further, the combination of McLain ‘491 and Cuervo would not produce the claimed spherocylinder.
With respect to claim 7, McLain ‘491 teaches a monolithic foam body formed with slits defining foam fingers, and a fastening mechanism that extends through a central bore of the foam body to hold the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state such the outer ends of the foam fingers define a generally spherical shape. Cuervo teaches a handle adhesively secured in a central bore, with a fastener secured to the handle. However, it would not have been obvious to modify McLain ‘491 in view of the teachings of Cuervo because the skilled artisan would not have viewed the handle construction of Cuervo as compatible with the rotating spindle/shaft construction of McLain ‘491. Further, the combination of McLain ‘491 and Cuervo would not produce the claimed spherocylinder.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, McLain ‘491 teaches a monolithic foam body formed with slits defining foam fingers, and a fastening mechanism that extends through a central bore of the foam body to hold the center portion of the foam body in a compressed state such the outer ends of the foam fingers define a generally spherical shape. Visman et al. teaches the use of a snap fastener. Chitayat et al. also appears to show a similar snap-type fastener. However, it would not have been obvious to modify McLain ‘491 in view of the teachings of Visman et al. and Chitayat et al. because the skilled artisan would not have viewed the handle constructions of Visman et al. and Chitayat et al. as compatible with the rotating spindle/shaft construction of McLain ‘491. Further, the combination of McLain ‘491 with Visman et al. and/or Chitayat et al. would not produce the claimed spherocylinder.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “center portion and the” (l. 7) should read “center portion, and the”.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
In the abstract, “foam finger” (l. 10) should read “foam fingers”.
In col. 2, at l. 54, “the first slits” is confusing because such “first slits” are not previously introduced. Further, “first slits” is inconsistent with and contradicted by “single spiral slit 22” (col. 2, l. 54).
In col. 3, at ll. 11-12, “rectangular outer ends 30” is not accurate. Due to the shape of the single spiral slit 22, the outer ends 30 of the foam fingers 36 are not truly “rectangular”. See Fig. 4.
In col. 3, at l. 24, “rectangular outer ends 30” is not accurate for the reason given above.
In col. 3, at ll. 24-25, “outer ends 30, through distorted somewhat” is confusing and does not conform to ordinary usage due to grammatical errors.
In col. 3, at ll. 24-26, “outer ends 30…together assume a generally hemi-spherical shape” is inaccurate. This description suggests and/or allows for all of the fingers to define a hemispherical shape. Instead, only some of the outer ends of the fingers define the hemispherical ends 88 of the compressed foam body.
In col. 4, at ll. 5-6, “A conical aperture radiates from the washer 56 and flange 76” is inaccurate because a single conical aperture does not radiate from the washer 56 and flange 76. Rather, the compressed foam body has a conical aperture adjacent each hemispherical end 88. Further, “conical” does not accurately describe the shape of the apertures shown in Fig. 3.
In col. 4, at l. 9, “cylinder portion” should read “cylindrical portion” in order to provide consistency with col. 4, l. 10 and col. 4, l. 12.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 3, the leftmost occurrence of reference number 76 is inaccurate. It appears that this occurrence of 76 should be changed to 70.
Figs. 3 and 4 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters (i.e., 86 and 87) not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. It appears that 86 should be changed to 80 in Fig. 3, and that 87 should be changed to 84 in Fig. 4.
The objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights