Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[patag2001]

In the second office action, the examiner says my structure is rejected as obvious because of A in view of B.

Reference A clearly describes the method of making their structure.

In response to the above rejection, the argument describes how the process of A in view of B cannot make my invention, because the created device or result of A in view of B cannot be removed from the mold.

Examiner says argument to a process is moot, because the claim is to a structure.

Any thoughts  from the experts on this?

Many Thanks!

[ManOfManyBadIdeas]

Obviously I am not an expert, but I'll say what I think anyway. On the surface, the examiner is
right. Since you are patenting the structure, it's the most important what features of the
structure references A and B teach, not whether they teach a suitable way to produce such
a structure. However, if A describes a method of production that isn't suitable for creating
the combination structure, I think the proper argument would be that A teaches away from
making such a combination (argument against motivation to combine). Since you are not
patenting a way to manufacture the structure, I am assuming that it's obvious. If that
assumption is correct, the examiner has to weigh the cons and pros: how easy it is to pick
a manufacturing method different from A for combination structure A+B
for a POSITA in the field of invention of reference A (since it's the basis of the combination
structure)? It would be nice if other obvious manufacturing options do not exist for a POSITA in
either of fields A or B.