`
`Docket No: HOK-0279
`
`REMARKS
`
`This is a filll and timely response to the Office Action mailed February 01, 2008.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`
`paragraph. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application, with claims 2-6 and 8-10
`
`being withdrawn.
`
`In view of these amendments, Applicant believes that all pending claims are in condition
`
`for allowance. Reexamination and reconsideration in light of the above amendments and the
`
`following remarks is respectfully requested.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`Applicant believes that the Examiner’s indication in the Office Action that the
`
`Information Disclosure Statement (hereinafter IDS) filed December 31, 2007 does not constitute a
`
`bona fide IDS since the form PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08 and cited references were not provided with
`
`the IDS. Based on Applicant’s knowledge and review of the electronic documents dated December
`
`31, 2007 in Private Pair of the USPTO web site, Applicant believes that the Examiner’s
`
`understanding is incorrect. The PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08 form and cited references was filed with
`
`the IDS dated December 31, 2007 and is currently of record in the electronic file wrapper of the
`
`present application. Thus, for this reason, Applicant submits that the Examiner must consider all of
`
`the references of the IDS filed December 31, 2007 since it complies with US. practice.
`
`Objection to the Abstract
`
`The Examiner has objected to the Abstract of the Disclosure because it exceeds 150
`
`words in length. Applicant has amended the Abstract of the Disclosure in accordance with the
`
`Examiner’s request. Thus, withdrawal of this objection is respectfiilly requested.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112
`
`Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, for allegedly being
`
`indefinite. Applicant believes that the amendment to claim 1 overcome this rejection by deleting the
`
`term “continuous” which allows for the bottom surface of the outer cutter to be smooth over the fill
`
`
`
`Application No. 1 1/15 1,280
`
`Docket No: HOK-O279
`
`length of said bridge even though the surface is perforated by slots. Thus, withdrawal of the present
`
`rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as allegedly being anticipated by Jensen et
`
`al. (US. Patent No. 2,273,524). Further, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
`
`allegedly being anticipated by Alexay (US. Patent No. 2,292,858). Applicant respectfully traverses
`
`these rejections.
`
`To constitute anticipation of the claimed invention under US. practice, the prior art
`
`reference must literally or inherently teach each and every limitation of the claims. Here, in this
`
`case, Applicant believes that Jensen et al. and Alexay fails to teach all the limitations of the claims
`
`as set forth in claims 1 and 7.
`
`Thus, withdrawal of these rejections is respectfully requested.
`
`
`
`Application No. 1 1/151,280
`
`Docket No: HOK-0279
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, all the claims now pending in the present application are
`
`believed to be clearly patentable over the outstanding rejections. Accordingly, favorable
`
`reconsideration of the claims in light of the above remarks is courteously solicited. If the Examiner
`
`has any comments or suggestions that could place this application in even better form, the Examiner
`
`is requested to telephone the undersigned attorney at the below-listed number.
`
`Dated: April 30, 2008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Lee Cheng
`Registration No: 40,949
`CHENG LAW GROUP PLLC
`
`1100 17th Street, NW.
`Suite 503
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 530-1280
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`Should additional fees be necessary in connection with the filing of this paper, or if a
`petition for extension of time is required for timely acceptance of same, the
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 50-4422 for any
`
`such fees; and applicant(s) hereby petition for any needed extension of time.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
