DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin et al. (US 2014/0124972 A, “Burgin”) in view of Song et al. (KR 2013/0006953 A, “Song”). The disclosure of Song is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 03 February 2025.
With respect to claims 1-6 and 18, Burgin discloses a multilayer lining for thermal and sound insulation (i.e., a multilayer structure) (Abstract, [0001], [0016]). As seen in Figs. 1 and 2 below, there is a foam layer 11 ([0098]) which is made from polyurethane ([0062-0063]) and has a density of 8-40 kg/m3 (i.e., 8-40 g/L) ([0068]) which overlaps the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the polyurethane foam corresponds to the claimed polyurethane layer γ. The reinforcement layer 10 ([0098]) contain glass fibers ([0051], [0053]), corresponding to the intermediate layer β. Scrim layers are included as outer layers in order to prevent the laminate from sticking to the mould, where the scrim layers are nonwoven layers ([0071-0072]), and therefore correspond to the claimed outer layers α1. As seen in Fig. 2C and Fig. 2D, the layers 10 (i.e., the intermediate layer β) or the layers 11 (i.e., the intermediate polyurethane layer γ) may be repeated independently of each other. Since the scrim layers (i.e., the layers α1) are outer layers, then the order of layers are as follows: scrim layer (α1)/reinforcing layer 10 (β)/polyurethane foam 11 (γ)/scrim layer (α1) (Fig. 2C); or scrim layer (α1)/polyurethane foam 11 (γ)/reinforcing layer 10 (β)/scrim layer (α1) (Fig. 2D). While there may be additional layers present, because the claims do not require the layers be in direct contact with each other, the structures disclosed in the reference and by Figs. 2C and 2D are considered to satisfy the claimed structures.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Burgin discloses reinforcement layers 10 ([0098]) containing glass fibers ([0051], [0053]), Burgin does not disclose wherein the glass fibers are glass wool fibers, nor wherein the glass wool fibers are bonded with a thermosetting phenolic resin binder.
Song teaches a multilayer sound-absorbing material (i.e., sound insulating material) ([0001]) comprising outer non-woven fabric layer 10, a resin felt layer 20, and foam layer 30 ([0023]). An inorganic layer comprising glass fiber or glass wool is included ([0005], [0032]), where the fibers use a thermosetting phenol resin for bonding and hardening between the fibers ([0036]). The foam is a polyurethane foam ([0039]).
Burgin and Song are analogous inventions in the field of sound insulating materials for automobiles having non-woven outer layers, polyurethane foam layers, and layers containing inorganic glass fibers.
In light of the disclosure of the equivalence and interchangeability of glass fibers and glass wool as disclosed by Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass wool instead of glass fibers in the reinforcement layer of Burgin and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermosetting phenol resin as the binder resin for the glass wool fibers as taught by Song in order to provide a reinforcing layer having sufficient bonding and hardening between the constituent fibers (Song, [0036]).
While there may be no disclosure from Burgin in view of Song that the polyurethane foam is made from polyurethane derived from polyurethane automotive scraps, it is noted that “[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 art product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Burgin in view of Song meets the requirements of the claimed structure, Burgin in view of Song clearly meets the requirements of the present claims.
With respect to claim 7, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Burgin in view of Song regarding the polyurethane layer having a compression set in the range of 1000-1200 g/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1856, given that Burgin in view of Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Burgin in view of Song would necessarily inherently have a compression set in the range of 1000-1200 g/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1856, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 8, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Burgin in view of Song regarding the polyurethane layer having an elongation value at break in both directions in a range of 40-150%, according to EN ISO 9073-3, given that Burgin in view of Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Burgin in view of Song would necessarily inherently have an elongation value at break in both directions in a range of 40-150%, according to EN ISO 9073-3, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 9, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Burgin in view of Song regarding the polyurethane layer having a tear resistance in both directions of 14 N/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1798, given that Burgin in view of Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Burgin in view of Song would necessarily inherently have a tear resistance in both direction of 14 N/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1798, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 13, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Burgin in view of Song regarding the multilayer structure having a flexural modulus (E) in the range of 380-1600 N/mm2, according to ISO 179, a load to break in the range of 40-80 N, according to ISO 179, and a tensile resistance of 4-16 N/mm2, according to ISO 179, given that Burgin in view of Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Burgin in view of Song would necessarily inherently possess these properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 21, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Burgin in view of Song regarding the multilayer structure having a flexural modulus (E) in the range of 550-950 N/mm2 as measured according to ISO 179, given that Burgin in view of Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Burgin in view of Song would necessarily inherently have a flexural modulus (E) in the range of 550-950 N/mm2, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin et al. (US 2014/0124972 A1, “Burgin”) in view of Song et al. (KR 2013/0006953 A, “Song”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haque (US 2006/0141884 A1), Ogawa et al. (JP 2007-111866 A, “Ogawa”), and the evidence provided by Ibeh (Phenol-Formaldehyde Resins). The disclosure of Song is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 03 February 2025, while the disclosure of Ogawa is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 21 May 2025.
With respect to claim 10, while Burgin in view of Song discloses the scrims are nonwoven layers (corresponding to the outer layers α1 as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1) made from fibers including viscose and polyester (Burgin, [0071-0072], [0074]), Burgin in view of Song does not disclose wherein the scrims are made from PET based fibers, nor wherein the fibers are covered with a phenolic coating.
Haque teaches reinforcing fibers made of polyester fibers and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers, where the fibers can be used in combination, and provide good structural qualities as well as good acoustical and thermal properties ([0027]). The fibers are used in automotive applications ([0001]).
Burgin in view of Song and Haque are analogous inventions in the field of reinforcing fibers made from polyester that are used in automotive applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrim layer of Burgin in view of Song to include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers as taught by Haque in order to provide a scrim layer having good structural qualities as well as good acoustical and thermal properties (Haque, [0027]).
Burgin in view of Song and Haque does not disclose wherein the fibers are covered with a phenolic coating.
Ogawa teaches a material used in automobile interiors ([0001]) having a layer of reinforcing fibers 13 made from polyester fibers ([0018-0019]). To improve the reinforcing properties and to impart moldability to materials made of the fibers, the fibers are impregnated or coated with a phenolic resin ([0019]). As evidenced by Ibeh, phenolic resins are thermosetting resins (Ibeh, page 23, 1st paragraph).
Burgin in view of Song and Haque and Ogawa are analogous inventions in the field of materials used with automobiles having layers made of reinforcing fibers made from polyester fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the viscose-polyester-PET fibers of Burgin in view of Song and Haque with a phenolic resin as taught by Ogawa in order to improve the reinforcing properties and to impart moldability to the fibers (Ogawa, [0019]).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin et al. (US 2014/0124972 A1, “Burgin”) in view of Song et al. (KR 2013/0006953 A, “Song”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haque (US 2006/0141884 A1). The disclosure of Song is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 03 February 2025.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, while Burgin in view of Song discloses the scrims are nonwoven layers (corresponding to the outer layers α1 as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1) made from fibers including oxidized polyacrylonitrile (PANox) (i.e., PANO) and polyester fibers (Burgin, [0071-0072], [0074]), Burgin in view of Song does not disclose wherein the scrims are made from carbon fibers.
Haque teaches reinforcing fibers made of carbon fibers and polyester fibers, where the fibers can be used in combination, and provide good structural qualities as well as good acoustical and thermal properties ([0027]). The fibers are used in automotive applications ([0001]).
Burgin in view of Song and Haque are analogous inventions in the field of reinforcing fibers made from polyester that are used in automotive applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrim layer of Burgin in view of Song to include carbon fibers as taught by Haque in order to provide a scrim layer having good structural qualities as well as good acoustical and thermal properties (Haque, [0027]). As a result of the combination, the fibers are PANO-carbon fibers-polyester fibers as presently claimed.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin et al. (US 2014/0124972 A1, “Burgin”) in view of Song et al. (KR 2013/0006953 A, “Song”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (JP 2007-111866 A, “Ogawa”), Nonaka et al. (WO 2018/092888 A1, “Nonaka”), and the evidence provided by Ibeh (Phenol-Formaldehyde Resins). The disclosure of Song is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 03 February 2025, the disclosure of Ogawa is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 21 May 2025, and the disclosure of Nonaka is based off US 2019/0329525 A1, which serves as an English language equivalent.
With respect to claims 12 and 20, while Burgin in view of Song discloses the use of a reinforcing layer containing glass wool fibers bonded with a thermosetting phenolic resin binder as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1, Burgin in view of Song does not disclose wherein the thermosetting phenolic resin binder is present in an amount of 10% with respect to the total weight of the layer, nor the use of a flame retardant in the reinforcing layer containing glass wool fibers.
Ogawa teaches a material used in automobile interiors ([0001]) having a layer of reinforcing fibers 13 made from glass fibers ([0018-0019]). To improve the reinforcing properties and to impart moldability to materials made of the fibers, the fibers are impregnated or coated with a phenolic resin ([0019]). As evidenced by Ibeh, phenolic resins are thermosetting resins (Ibeh, page 23, 1st paragraph).
Burgin in view of Song and Ogawa are analogous inventions in the field of materials used with automobiles having layers made of reinforcing fibers made from glass-based fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the glass wool fibers of Burgin in view of Song with a phenolic resin as taught by Ogawa in order to improve the reinforcing properties and to impart moldability to the fibers (Ogawa, [0019]). Regarding the amount of phenolic resin being in an amount of 10% with respect to the total weight of the reinforcing layer, while Burgin in view of Song and Ogawa may not disclose this weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any amount of phenolic resin, including values presently claimed, in order to optimize the operation of the reinforcing layer and to provide desired reinforcing properties and moldability.
Burgin in view of Song and Ogawa does not disclose the use of a flame retardant in the reinforcing layer.
Nonaka teaches a sound-absorbing thermal-insulating material (Abstract, [0001], [0009]) used in automobiles ([0044]). The material includes flame resistant organic fibers and inorganic fibers bonded via a binder resin ([0018]). The inorganic fibers include glass fibers ([0033]). The organic fibers are polyetherimide fibers in order to provide high thermal shrink properties and excellent heat resistance, flame resistance, and fuming properties ([0027]) and correspond to the presently claimed flame retardant additive.
Burgin in view of Song and Ogawa and Nonaka are analogous inventions in the field of thermal and sound insulating materials used in automobiles have layers containing glass-based fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyetherimide fibers as taught by Nonaka in the reinforcing layer of Burgin in view of Song and Ogawa in order to provide a reinforcing layer that provides high thermal shrink properties and excellent heat resistance, flame resistance, and fuming properties (Nonaka, [0027]).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 13, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 2013/0006953 A, “Song”). The disclosure of Song is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 03 February 2025.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 18, Song discloses a multilayer sound absorbing material ([0001]) comprising outer non-woven fabric layers 10, resin felt layer 20, and foam layer 30 ([0023]). An inorganic layer comprising glass wool fiber may also be included ([0005], [0032]) and uses a thermosetting phenol resin for bonding and hardening the constituent fibers ([0036]). Song discloses that the inorganic layer and foam layer can be laminated in any order ([0026]). The foam is a polyurethane foam ([0039]) and has a density of 7-150 kg/m3 (i.e., 7-150 g/L) ([0040]), which overlaps the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The non-woven fabric layers 10 correspond to the claims outer layers α1. The inorganic layer comprising glass wool fiber and a thermosetting phenol resin corresponds to the at least one intermediate layer β. The foam layer 30 corresponds to the claimed at least one intermediate polyurethane layer γ. Although Song does not disclose the polyurethane foam is made from polyurethane derived from polyurethane automotive scraps, it is noted that “[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 art product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image2.png
284
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Song meets the requirements of the claimed structure, Song clearly meets the requirements of the present claims.
In light of the overlap between the claimed multilayer structure and that taught by Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a multilayer structure that is both taught by Song and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 7, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Song regarding the polyurethane layer having a compression set in the range of 1000-1200 g/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1856, given that Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Song would necessarily inherently have a compression set in the range of 1000-1200 g/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1856, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 8, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Song regarding the polyurethane layer having an elongation value at break in both directions in a range of 40-150%, according to EN ISO 9073-3, given that Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Song would necessarily inherently have an elongation value at break in both directions in a range of 40-150%, according to EN ISO 9073-3, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 9, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Song regarding the polyurethane layer having a tear resistance in both directions of 14 N/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1798, given that Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Song would necessarily inherently have a tear resistance in both direction of 14 N/cm2, according to DIN EN ISO 1798, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 13, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Song regarding the multilayer structure having a flexural modulus (E) in the range of 380-1600 N/mm2, according to ISO 179, a load to break in the range of 40-80 N, according to ISO 179, and a tensile resistance of 4-16 N/mm2, according to ISO 179, given that Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the polyurethane layer of Song would necessarily inherently possess these properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 21, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Song regarding the multilayer structure having a flexural modulus (E) in the range of 550-950 N/mm2, according to ISO 179, given that Song discloses an identical multilayer structure having an identical polyurethane layer having a density encompassing the claimed range, it is clear the multilayer structure of Song would necessarily inherently have a flexural modulus (E) in the range of 550-950 N/mm2, absent evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendments to claims 2, 5, and 9-13, the objections to claims 2, 5, and 9-13 are withdrawn.
Due to the amendments to claims 6 and 12-13, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 12-13 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 September 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Burgin in view of Song, Applicant argues Burgin and Song fail to disclose at least one intermediate layer β made of a glass wool fiber bonded with a thermosetting phenolic resin binder. Applicant argues the binding material of Burgin’s layer 10 is a polyamide, and thus Burgin does not disclose a thermosetting phenolic resin binder. Applicant further argues Burgin’s layer 10 is a composite material made of a blend of at least two materials being glass fibers and a polyamide present in an amount of at least 20% by weight such that Burgin’s polymeric matrix with glass fibers is different in structure than a glass wool. Applicant further argues modifying Burgin to replace the glass fibers with glass wool fibers would render Burgin unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the reinforcement layer of Burgin provides stiffness to the multilayer. Applicant points to the specification for support in arguing that the intermediate layer β retains a level of flexibility, and that the reinforcing fibers of Burgin are in the form of cut fibers, endless filaments, or roving and that Burgin is silent regarding the use of wool. Applicant further argues that even if the glass fibers of Burgin were replaced with glass wool, glass wool fibers have diameters which are much lower than glass fibers used for reinforcement and would not be effective at providing stiffness, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not make the modification because the modification would render Burgin incapable for its purpose of providing stiffness. Applicant additionally argues Song fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Burgin, and that Song’s structure is different from the claimed multilayer structure because Song’s structure is non-woven fabric layer 10/resin felt layer 20/foam layer 30. Applicant lastly argues that Haque, Ogawa, Ibeh, and Nonaka fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Burgin and Song. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Burgin fails to disclose a glass wool fiber and thermosetting phenolic resin binder, the examiner acknowledges this but notes that Burgin is not being used to meet those limitations; instead, Song is being used. As set forth above, Song teaches a multilayer sound-absorbing material (i.e., sound insulating material) ([0001]) comprising outer non-woven fabric layer 10, a resin felt layer 20, and foam layer 30 ([0023]). An inorganic layer comprising glass fiber or glass wool is included ([0005], [0032]), where the fibers use a thermosetting phenol resin for bonding and hardening between the fibers ([0036]). The foam is a polyurethane foam ([0039]). Burgin and Song are analogous inventions in the field of sound insulating materials for automobiles having non-woven outer layers, polyurethane foam layers, and layers containing inorganic glass fibers. In light of the disclosure of the equivalence and interchangeability of glass fibers and glass wool as disclosed by Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass wool instead of glass fibers in the reinforcement layer of Burgin and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermosetting phenol resin as the binder resin for the glass wool fibers as taught by Song in order to provide a reinforcing layer having sufficient bonding and hardening between the constituent fibers (Song, [0036]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that modifying Burgin would render the reference inoperable, this is not found persuasive. Applicant has provided no evidence (i.e., data) supporting this position. It is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the Burgin reference must be supported by a declaration or affidavit.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Song has different layers than those presently claimed, this is not found persuasive. For the rejections combining Burgin with Song, the examiner is not suggesting using every layer of Song, but instead using the glass wool in a thermosetting phenol taught by Song in place of Burgin’s glass fibers and polyamide matrix. It is noted that the “test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference… Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and that “combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA). For the rejections using Song as the primary reference, the examiner acknowledges that Song may disclose the use of additional layers, but these additional layers are not excluded by the present claims due to the transitional phrase “comprising”.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Haque, Ogawa, Ibeh, and Nonaka fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Burgin and Song, this is not found persuasive because neither Burgin nor Song contain the alleged deficiencies for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787