Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/12/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendment/remarks filed 06/12/2025.
Claims 9-18 are pending, of which claims 9-13 are withdrawn. Claims 14-18 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hu (“Porous W-doped VO2 films with simultaneously enhanced visible transparency and thermochromic properties”, Hu et al., J Sol-Gel Sci Technol 77:85–93 (2016), hereinafter Hu) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 14-18 are product-by-process claims. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited process steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the composition. Here, the claims merely appear to require a solid member comprising a bulk body comprising VO2 substituted by one or more elements of W, Cr and Al,
wherein the one or more elements of W, Cr and Al has a proportion of more than 0 atomic% and 20 atomic% or less based on the total amount of the vanadium element and the one or more elements of W, Cr and Al;
wherein powder particles of the powder material are directly bonded each other to form the bulk body;
wherein a latent heat quantity per volume of the solid member is 100 J/cc or more;
wherein proportion of weight of the partially substituted VO2 oxide in all the vanadium oxides is 95% or more and less than 100%;
wherein the bulk body has a foam-like pattern structure inside;
wherein a relative density of the bulk body is 90% or more.
Because Applicant has disclosed (instant specification paragraphs [0065]-[0066]; pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks submitted 06/12/2025) the one or more types of vanadium oxides other than VO2 (e.g., V2O5-based vanadium oxide) completely changes its chemical identity to a vanadium dioxide after sintered in a vacuum atmosphere, the limitations of a powder material comprising “one or more types of vanadium oxides other than the VO2-based vanadium oxide”, “ratio of sum of atomic % of the vanadium and the substitution elements to atomic % of the oxygen in all powder is expressed as 1: (2 + d), d is 0 < d < 0.1” and “a surface of the powder has been oxidized by heating in an air atmosphere so that the surface of the powder comprises a V2O5-based vanadium oxide” no longer limit the final product (the solid member). The process steps of claims 14-18 are extended little patentable weight in determining patentability of claims 14-18.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (The claims were directed to a zeolite manufactured by mixing together various inorganic materials in solution and heating the resultant gel to form a crystalline metal silicate essentially free of alkali metal. The prior art described a process of making a zeolite which, after ion exchange to remove alkali metal, appeared to be "essentially free of alkali metal." The court upheld the rejection because the applicant had not come forward with any evidence that the prior art was not "essentially free of alkali metal" and therefore a different and nonobvious product.).
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Office personnel should note that reliance on the alternative grounds of 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not eliminate the need to explain both the anticipation and obviousness aspects of the rejections. See also MPEP 2113.
Furthermore, the preamble term “latent heat storage” is an intended use and does not add structural difference, thus the intended use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 16 recites “a relative density of the bulk body is 90% or more”. Claim 18 recites “a relative density of the bulk body is 80% or more”. It is unclear which given reference material is used to be compared with the density of the bulk body. The instant invention discloses that “the relative density p based on the density as a physical property value of VO2 can be 80%≤ρ<100%” (instant US publication [0023]). Therefore, for the purpose of the compact prosecution, this limitation of claim 16 is interpreted as “a relative density of the bulk body based on the density of VO2 is 90% or more”. This limitation of claim 18 is interpreted as “a relative density of the bulk body based on the density of VO2 is 80% or more”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (WO 2016/006338 A1, hereinafter Hirose).
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 17, as stated above, claims 14, 15, and 17 are product-by-process claims. Here, claims 14, 15, and 17 merely require a solid member comprising a bulk body comprising VO2 substituted by one or more elements of W, Cr and Al, wherein the one or more elements of W, Cr and Al has a proportion of more than 0 atomic% and 20 atomic% or less based on the total amount of the vanadium element and the one or more elements of W, Cr and Al; wherein powder particles of the powder material are directly bonded each other to form the bulk body; wherein a latent heat quantity per volume of the solid member is 100 J/cc or more; wherein proportion of weight of the partially substituted VO2 oxide in all the vanadium oxides is 95% or more and less than 100%.
Furthermore, the preamble term “latent heat storage” is an intended use and does not add structural difference, thus the intended use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Hirose teaches that a composite is a mass obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising (1) a ceramic material, and (2) vanadium pentoxide ([0017]; [0058]-[0060], Example 1), wherein the ceramic material is doped vanadium oxide which absorbs heat by latent heat ([0020]-[0021], [0033]), and the doped vanadium oxide is represented by the formula: V1-xMxO2, wherein M can be element W, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.05 ([0027]). Thus, in the doped vanadium oxide of Hirose, the element of W can have a proportion of more than 0 atomic% and 5 atomic% or less based on the total amount of the vanadium element and the element of W, which falls within the claimed range of “more than 0 atomic% and 20 atomic% or less”. The doped vanadium oxide (i.e. V1-xWxO2) of Hirose reads on the claimed partially substituted VO2 oxide.
Hirose also teaches that vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) is preferably 1 wt.% or more in the mixture of the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) and the vanadium pentoxide (para [0044]). Thus, the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the vanadium pentoxide, which overlaps with the claimed range of “95% or more and less than 100%”.
Hirose does not teach that proportion of weight of the partially substituted VO2 oxide (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) in all the vanadium oxides is determined by phase identification using X-ray diffraction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to reasonably expect that the doped vanadium oxide (V1-xWxO2) would be 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the doped vanadium oxide (V1-xWxO2) and vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) when measured by phase identification using X-ray diffraction, because the doped vanadium oxide (V1-xWxO2) is 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the doped vanadium oxide (V1-xWxO2) and vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) as art recognized. No matter what kind of method is used to measure the proportion of weight of the doped vanadium oxide (V1-xWxO2) in the mixture, it will not change the fact that the doped vanadium oxide (V1-xWxO2) is 99 wt.% or less in the mixture as art recognized.
Hirose also teaches that the mixture of the powder of the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) and the powder of the vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) was pressed by a press machine to form pellets, and the formed pellets were heat-treated to produce a composite ([0060], Example 1), and the composite is very densified ([0050]), which reads on the claimed powder particles of the powder material are directly bonded each other to form the bulk body. The composite of Hirose reads on the claimed bulk body.
Hirose also teaches that the composite is used as a cooling device in a sheet-like shape for heat absorption ([0060]; [0053]), which reads on the claimed solid latent heat storage member.
Hirose further teaches that the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) has a latent heat amount of 20 J/g or more ([0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “100 J/cc or more”.
Hirose does not specifically teach that the composite (the claimed solid latent heat storage member) has a latent heat amount of 20 J/g or more.
However, Hirose teaches that the composite is a mass obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising (1) a ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2), and (2) vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) ([0017]; [0027]; [0058]-[0060], Example 1), wherein the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) absorbs heat by latent heat ([0020]-[0021], [0033]), wherein the vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material in order to make the bonding of the particles of the ceramic material more firm, and the strength of the composite more enhanced ([0043]).
Furthermore, as stated above, the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the vanadium pentoxide (V2O5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the composite obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising a ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2), and vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) as taught by Hirose, would have a latent heat amount of 20 J/g or more with a reasonable expectation of success, because the ceramic material is the heat absorption material in the composite of Hirose, V2O5 is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material, the ceramic material has a latent heat amount of 20 J/g or more, and the ceramic material is 99 wt.% or less in the powder mixture as recognized by Hirose.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Hirose teaches that the composite is a mass obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising (1) a ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2), and (2) vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) ([0017]; [0027]; [0058]-[0060], Example 1), wherein the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) absorbs heat by latent heat ([0020]-[0021], [0033]), wherein the V2O5 is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material in order to make the bonding of the particles of the ceramic material more firm, and the strength of the composite more enhanced ([0043]).
Hirose also teaches that the composite is very densified and has a large volume fraction of the ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2), the distance between the particles of the ceramic material becomes small and the void is reduced ([0050]). Hirose also teaches that V2O5 is preferably 1 wt.% or more in the mixture of the ceramic material and the V2O5 (para [0044]). Thus, the ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the V2O5.
Hirose does not teach that a relative density of the composite (the claimed bulk body) based on the density of VO2 is 80% or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the relative density of the composite in Hirose based on the density of VO2 would be 99% or less with a reasonable expectation of success, because the composite of Hirose is obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising a ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) and vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), the ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the V2O5, and the V2O5 of Hirose is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material more firm, thereby making the composite very densified as recognized by Hirose.
Thus, the relative density of the composite in Hirose based on the density of VO2 would be 99% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of “80% or more”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (WO 2016/006338 A1, hereinafter Hirose) as applied to claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Liu (“Thermochromic VO2 thin film prepared by post annealing treatment of V2O5 thin film”, Advanced Materials Research, Vols 79-82, pp 747-750, 2009, hereinafter Liu).
The disclosure of Hirose is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, the instant invention discloses that the foam-like pattern structure refers to a structure in which a small bubbly pattern is observed on the surface of the crystal when observed with a scanning electron microscope (instant US Publication [0021]).
Hirose teaches that the composite is a mass obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising (1) a ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2), and (2) vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) ([0017]; [0027]; [0058]-[0060], Example 1), wherein the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) absorbs heat by latent heat ([0020]-[0021], [0033]), wherein the vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material in order to make the bonding of the particles of the ceramic material more firm, and the strength of the composite more enhanced ([0043]).
Hirose also teaches that vanadium oxide (VO2) absorbs heat ([0020], [0027]), while doping other element such as tungsten (W) adjusts the phase transition temperature of vanadium oxide (VO2) ([0033]-[0034]).
Hirose also teaches that the powder mixture was pressed by a press machine to form pellets, then heat-treated at 500-750°C in a nitrogen atmosphere to obtain the composite ([0060], Example 1).
Hirose does not teach that the composite (the claimed bulk body) has a foam-like pattern structure inside, which is observed by a scanning electron microscope.
However, Liu teaches that vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) decomposes to vanadium dioxide (VO2) and loses oxygen (O2) when the annealing temperature reaches 550°C or higher at the atmospheric pressure of less than 0.06Pa (Abstract; p. 749, Fig. 1), which overlaps with the range of “500-750°C” of heat-treating the powder mixture in Hirose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat-treat a powder mixture comprising V1-xWxO2 and V2O5 as taught by Hirose at a temperature of 550°C or higher at the atmospheric pressure of less than 0.06Pa as taught by Liu, in order to make V2O5 to become VO2, thereby bonding the particles of the V1-xWxO2 and increasing the heat absorption property of the composite with a reasonable expectation of success, because vanadium oxide (VO2) is a heat absorption material as recognized by Hirose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the composite obtained by pressing, then heat-treating the powder mixture comprising V1-xWxO2 and V2O5 at a temperature of 550°C or higher at the atmospheric pressure of less than 0.06Pa as taught by the combination of Hirose and Liu, would have a foam-like pattern structure (i.e. a small bubbly pattern) inside when measured by a scanning electron microscope with a reasonable expectation of success, because vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) decomposes to vanadium dioxide (VO2) and loses oxygen (O2) when the annealing temperature reaches 550°C or higher at the atmospheric pressure of less than 0.06Pa as recognized by Liu.
Furthermore, Hirose also teaches that the composite is very densified and has a large volume fraction of the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) ([0050]).
Hirose also teaches that vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) is preferably 1 wt.% or more in the mixture of the ceramic material and the vanadium pentoxide (para [0044]). Thus, the ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the vanadium pentoxide (V2O5).
Hirose does not teach that a relative density of the composite (the claimed bulk body) based on the density of VO2 is 90% or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the relative density (based on the density of VO2) of the composite made by the teaching of the combination of Hirose and Liu would be 99% or less with a reasonable expectation of success, because the ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) is 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the V2O5 as recognized by Hirose, and V2O5 decomposes to VO2 as recognized by Liu.
Thus, the relative density (based on the density of VO2) of the composite made by the teaching of the combination of Hirose and Liu would be 99% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of “90% or more”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (WO 2016/006338 A1, hereinafter Hirose) as applied to claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further as evidenced by Liu (“Thermochromic VO2 thin film prepared by post annealing treatment of V2O5 thin film”, Advanced Materials Research, Vols 79-82, pp 747-750, 2009, hereinafter Liu).
The disclosure of Hirose is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, the instant invention discloses that the foam-like pattern structure refers to a structure in which a small bubbly pattern is observed on the surface of the crystal when observed with a scanning electron microscope (instant US Publication [0021]).
Hirose teaches that the composite is a mass obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising (1) a ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2), and (2) vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) ([0017]; [0027]; [0058]-[0060], Example 1), wherein the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) absorbs heat by latent heat ([0020]-[0021], [0033]), wherein the V2O5 is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material in order to make the bonding of the particles of the ceramic material more firm, and the strength of the composite more enhanced ([0043]).
Hirose also teaches that the powder mixture comprising V1-xWxO2 and V2O5 was pressed by a press machine to form pellets, and the formed pellets were heat-treated at 500-750°C in a nitrogen atmosphere to obtain the composite ([0060], Example 1).
Hirose does not teach that the composite (the claimed bulk body) has a foam-like pattern structure inside, which is observed by a scanning electron microscope.
However, Liu as an evidentiary reference teaches that vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) has a melting point of 670°C, and V2O5 begins to decompose and loses oxygen (O2) when heated above 700°C (p. 748, 3rd para, § Thermodynamic calculation), which overlaps with the range of “500-750°C” of heat-treating the powder mixture in Hirose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the composite obtained by pressing, then heat-treating the powder mixture comprising V1-xWxO2 and V2O5 at a temperature of 500-750°C as taught by Hirose, would have a foam-like pattern structure (i.e. a small bubbly pattern) inside when measured by a scanning electron microscope with a reasonable expectation of success, because vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) begins to decompose and loses oxygen (O2) when heated above 700°C as recognized by Liu which overlaps with the range of “500-750°C” in Hirose.
Furthermore, Hirose also teaches that the composite is very densified and has a large volume fraction of the ceramic material (i.e. the doped vanadium oxide, V1-xWxO2) ([0050]).
Hirose also teaches that vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) is preferably 1 wt.% or more in the mixture of the ceramic material and the V2O5 (para [0044]). Thus, the ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and the V2O5.
Hirose does not teach that a relative density of the composite (the claimed bulk body) based on the density of VO2 is 90% or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the relative density of the composite in Hirose based on the density of VO2 would be 99% or less with a reasonable expectation of success, because the composite of Hirose is obtained by heat-treating a powder mixture comprising a ceramic material (i.e. V1-xWxO2) and V2O5, the ceramic material of Hirose is preferably 99 wt.% or less in the mixture of the ceramic material and V2O5, and the V2O5 is used to bond the particles of the ceramic material more firm, thereby making the composite very densified as recognized by Hirose.
Thus, the relative density of the composite in Hirose based on the density of VO2 would be 99% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of “90% or more”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2025 with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to any reference being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes a new reference, Hirose (WO 2016/006338 A1), under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims. As stated above, claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (WO 2016/006338 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761