Application No. 14/635,652
`Amendment ”A” dated February 20, 2018
`Reply to Office Action dated September 18, 2017
`
`REMARKS
`
`The present Amendment is in response to the Office Action dated September 18, 2017.
`
`Claims 14—15 are cancelled. Claims 1—13 are now pending in view ofthe above amendments. The
`
`following remarks are not intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of the distinctions between
`
`any cited references and the claimed invention. Rather, the distinctions identified and discussed
`
`below are presented solely by way of example to illustrate some of the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the cited references. The remarks presented herein have been made
`
`merely to clarify the claimed embodiments from elements purported by the Examiner to be
`
`taught by the cited reference. Such remarks, or a lack of remarks, are not intended to constitute,
`
`and should not be construed as, an acquiescence: as to the purported teachings or prior art status
`
`of the cited references; as to the characterization of the cited references advanced by the
`
`Examiner; or as to any other assertions, allegations or characterizations made by the Examiner
`
`at any time in this case. The right to challenge the purported teaching and prior art status of the
`
`cited references at any appropriate time is reserved. Reconsideration of the application is
`
`respectfully requested in view ofthe above amendments to the claims and the following remarks.
`
`Amended Drawings
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because Figures 8 and 9 are allegedly
`
`incomplete. The Office Action indicates that it is unclear from Figures 8 and 9 how the element shown
`
`at reference character "22’" is meant to cooperate with the remaining structure in Figures 8 and 9.
`
`In response, Figure 8 is amended to include an arrow above element 22 (relabeled as element
`
`22’) to illustrate how element 22’ is inserted and show the cooperation between the element 22’ and
`
`the remaining structure of Figures 8-9. Withdrawal of the objection of Figures 8-9 is respectfully
`
`requested. The specification is also added to reflect the element reference 22’ as discussed herein.
`
`No new matter is added.
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h) because Figures 3d and 3f include
`
`reference characters "24" and "26" which point to structures in both Figures, and therefore, the
`
`Figures are not "clearly separated from one another" as required by the rule.
`
`6of9
`
`

`

`Application No.14/635,652
`Amendment ”A” dated February 20, 2018
`Reply to Office Action dated September 18, 2017
`
`In response, Figures 3d and 3f are amended such that reference characters ”24” and ”26” no
`
`longer point to structures in both Figures. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(1) because Figures 2 and 4 include
`
`exploded views where the separated parts of the invention are not embraced by a bracket. Figures
`
`2 and 4 are amended to include a bracket as requested by the Examiner.
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(1) because phantom lines in each of Figures
`
`1-2 and 4-9 interfere with understanding of the Figure. Figures 1-2 and 4-9 are amended to remove
`
`the phantom lines. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p) because Figures 1 (see "2"), 2 (see "2"),
`
`and 3a (see "14") include a reference character not placed upon a surface, nor pointing at any
`
`particular structure using a lead line. Figures 1, 2 and 3a have been amended to delete reference
`
`elements 2 and 14. Reference elements 2 and 14, however, are still present in the Figures, for
`
`example in Figures 4-7. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
`
`The drawings are objected to as falling to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference
`
`characters " 10" and " 12" have both been used to designate the same structure in Figure 3e. Figure
`
`3e is amended to delete the reference character ”12”. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`The drawings are objected to as falling to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference
`
`character "22" has been used to designate different rotary elements between Figures 1, 2 and Figures
`
`8,9. Reference character 22 has been cancelled from Figure 1. Figures 8 and 9 are amended to refer
`
`to reference character ”22’”. The specification is also amended accordingly. Withdrawal of the
`
`objection is respectfully requested.
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(q) because Figure 3d includes lead lines not
`
`extending from a reference character. The extraneous lead lines have been cancelled. Withdrawal
`
`of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`The amendments to the drawings are believed to overcome the objections. No new
`
`matter is added and withdrawal of all objections to the drawings is respectfully requested.
`
`7of9
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/635,652
`Amendment ”A” dated February 20, 2018
`Reply to Office Action dated September 18, 2017
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`The Office Action rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
`
`anticipated by Herb 701 (US 7,044,701) and Herb 995 (US 7,073,995). Claims 14 and 15 are
`
`cancelled, rendering the rejection moot. No admission is made regarding the substance of the
`
`rejection of claims 14—15. Withdrawal ofthe rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Allowed Subject Matter
`
`The Examiner’s allowance of claims 1—13 is appreciated.
`
`The Applicants submit the following comments concerning the Examiner’s statements of
`
`reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in the Office Action. Applicant agrees with
`
`the Examiner that the claimed invention of claims 1—13 is patentable over the prior art, but
`
`respectfully disagrees with the Examiners statement of reasons for allowance as set forth in
`
`Office Action. Applicant submits that it
`
`is the claim as a whole, rather than any particular
`
`limitation, that makes each of the claims allowable. No single limitation should be construed as
`
`the reason for allowance of a claim because it is each of the elements of the claim that makes it
`
`allowable. Therefore, Applicants do not concede that the reasons for allowable subject matter
`
`given by the Examiner are the only reasons that make, or would make, the claims allowable and
`
`do not make any admission or concession concerning the Examiner’s statement in the Office
`
`Action.
`
`80f9
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/635,652
`Amendment ”A” dated February 20, 2018
`Reply to Office Action dated September 18, 2017
`
`W
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicants believe the claims as amended are in allowable form.
`
`In the event that the Examiner finds remaining impediment to a prompt allowance of this
`
`application that may be clarified through a telephone interview, or which may be overcome by
`
`an Examiner’s Amendment, the Examiner is requested to contact the undersigned attorney. In
`
`view ofthe recent USPTO initiative regarding compact prosecution, Applicant respectfully invites
`
`the Examiner to contact the undersigned at his earliest convenience in the instance that
`
`additional impediment exists to the prompt allowance of this case.
`
`Dated February 20th, 2018.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`[Carl T. ReedI Reg.# 45454[
`
`CARL T. REED
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Registration No. 45,454
`Customer No. 022913
`
`Telephone No. 801.533.9800
`
`10109179_l.docx
`
`90f9
`
`