Application No.: 16/181,296
`
`Docket No.: 122202-6225 (P29273USC1)
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing, claims 21-42 are pending examination, of which claims 21,
`
`32, 39, and 41 are the independent claims. Claim 21 is amended herein, claim 25 is cancelled
`
`herein, and claims 41 and 42 are added herein. Support for the amendments is found in the
`
`original disclosure, including, for example, the originally filed claims. No new matter has been
`
`added herein. Reconsideration and further examination are respectfully requested.
`
`Requestfor Interview
`
`Applicant has submitted herewith an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests an interview with Examiner Gustavo D. Polo prior to the
`
`issuance of a subsequent Offlce Action, preferably prior to the next evaluation.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Applicant gratefully thanks the Examiner for the indication in the Office Action that
`
`claims 32-40 are allowed. Applicant gratefully thanks the Examiner for the indication in the
`
`Office Action that claims 23-30 contain allowable subject matter and would be allowed if
`
`rewritten in independent form.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102 & § 103
`
`Claim 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 USC § 102 by US. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0169975
`
`(“Kienzle”). Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 over Kienzle.
`
`A. Independent claim 21
`
`Without addressing or conceding the merits of the 35 USC § 102 rejection of
`
`independent claim 21, and in order to expedite prosecution, independent claim 21 has been
`
`amended to recite features of allowable dependent claim 25. Accordingly, independent claim 21
`
`is believed to be allowable for at least the same reasons as dependent claim 25. Reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal of the 35 USC § 102 rejection of independent claim 21 are respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`B. Independent claim 41
`
`Independent claim 41 recites features similar to those recited in the allowable dependent
`
`claims. Accordingly, independent claim 41 is believed to be allowable for at least the same
`
`and/or similar reasons.
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/181,296
`
`Docket No.: 122202-6225 (PZ9273USC1)
`
`C. Dependent claims
`
`The other claims currently under consideration in the application are dependent from
`
`their respective independent claims discussed above and therefore are believed to be allowable
`
`for at least similar reasons Because each dependent claim is deemed to define an additional
`
`aspect, the individual consideration of each on its own merits is respectfully requested.
`
`Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of the dependent claims are respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the entire application is in condition for allowance,
`
`and such action is respectfully requested at the Examiner’s earliest convenience. Should the
`
`Examiner have any questions, please call the undersigned at the phone number listed below so
`
`that any such questions may be promptly resolved.
`
`Any remarks in support of patentability of one claim should not be imputed to any other
`
`claim, even if similar terminology is used. Any language or remarks referring to only a portion
`
`of a claim should not necessarily be understood to base patentability on solely that portion,
`
`rather, patentability rests on each claim taken as a whole.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that to the extent any disclaimers or statements were made
`
`previously during prosecution with respect to the scope of the claimed invention, such
`
`disclaimers and statements are hereby rescinded.
`
`Applicant respectfully reserves the right to traverse any of the rejections, assertions and
`
`submissions made in connection with the application, even if not discussed herein, including the
`
`right to challenge later whether any of the cited references is prior art. The absence of a reply to
`
`a specific rejection, issue, or comment does not signify agreement with or concession of that
`
`rejection, issue, or comment. In addition, because any arguments made may not be exhaustive,
`
`there may be other reasons that have not been expressed for patentability of any or all claims.
`
`When amendments are made to any claims, no acquiescence or estoppel is implied thereby, such
`
`amendments are made only to expedite prosecution of the present application and are without
`
`prejudice to the presentation or assertion, in the future, of claims directed to subject matter that is
`
`same as or similar to that previously presented. Nothing in this paper should be construed as an
`
`intent to concede, or actual concession of, any issue with regard to any claim, or to any cited art,
`
`except as specifically stated in this paper, and the amendment or cancellation of any claim does
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/181,296
`
`Docket No.: 122202-6225 (P29273USC1)
`
`not necessarily signify concession of unpatentability of the claim prior to its amendment or
`
`cancellation.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 500310 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`/Michael G. Dreznes/
`
`Michael G. Dreznes
`
`Registration No. 59,965
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 142248
`as our correspondence address.
`
`600 Anton Blvd, Ste. 1800
`
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
`Phone: 714.830.0600 MD:scm
`
`Facsimile: 714.830.0700
`
`Date: August 14, 2019
`
`DBZ/ 37102037.1
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`
