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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes a phrase that can be implied, i.e. “are provided”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pages 3, 5, and 6 recite “selected one or more from a group consisting of” but should instead recite ‘one or more selected from a group consisting of’ as seen on page 8. Page 5, lines 2 recites “alkaline soluble” but should instead recite ‘alkali-soluble’ for consistency purposes. Pages 6 and 14-20 recite “additive” while page 13 recites “auxiliary agents”. The Examiner suggests choosing one for consistency purposes. Page 5, line 13 recites “resin, an” which is missing ‘and’ in between. Page 5, line 24 recites “tetraacrylate, dipentaerythritol” which is missing ‘and’ in between. Page 6, line 6 recites “benzophenone, polybutylene” which is missing ‘and’ in between. Page 11, line 2 recites “suitable” but should instead recite ‘suitably’. Page 11, line 23 recites “resin and,” but should instead recite ‘resin, and’. Page 12, line 15 recites “tetraacrylate, dipentaerythritol” which is missing ‘and’ in between. Page 12, line 29 recites “oxide, 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl” which is missing ‘and’ in between. Page 13, line 2 recites “polybutylene glycol bis(9-oxo-9H-thixanthoxyacetate)” but should instead recite ‘and polybutylene glycol bis(9-oxo-9H-thioxanthoxyacetic acid) ester’ based on page 6. Pages 15 and 19-21 recites Example 2 and Comparative Example 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which comprise identical components in identical amounts combined in an identical manner and meet the limitations of claim 1. Thus, it is unclear how Comparative Example 2 is in fact comparative. The Examiner would also like clarification as how Comparative Example 3 does not meet the limitations of claim 1 as it comprises the necessary components thus making it “comparative”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 12 are missing the status identifier. Remove hyphen from “low-dielectric” in claim 1 to keep claim consistency with other claims. Claims 2, 4-8, and 13-20 recite “selected one or more from a group consisting of” but should instead recite ‘one or more selected from a group consisting of’. Claims 4, 13, and 14 recite “alkaline soluble” in line 3 but should instead recite “alkali-soluble” for consistency purposes. Claims 4, 13, and 14 also recite “selected from one or more of an” but should instead recite ‘one or more selected from a group consisting of’. Claims 4, 13, and 14 further recite “resin, an aromatic” but should instead recite ‘resin, and an aromatic’. Claims 5, 15, and 16 recite “tetraacrylate, dipentaerythritol” but should instead recite ‘tetraacrylate, and dipentaerythritol’. Claims 6, 17, and 18 recites “benzophenone, polybutylene” but should instead recite ‘benzophenone, and polybutylene’. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the low dielectric epoxy resin is an epoxy resin containing at least two epoxy groups”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the low dielectric epoxy resin is selected one or more from a group consisting of” as well as “ more preferably”. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claims 4, 13, and 14 recite the broad recitation “wherein an acid value of the alkali-soluble resin is”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the alkaline soluble resin is selected one or more from a group consisting of” as well as “preferably, the photosensitive epoxy acrylic resin”, “preferably, the phenylacrylic resin”, and “preferably, the photosensitive polyurethane acrylic acid resin” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Claims 5, 15, and 16 recite the broad recitation “wherein the weight average molecular weight of the acrylate monomer”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the acrylate monomer is selected one or more from a group consisting of” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claims 6, 17, and 18 recite the broad recitation “wherein the photoinitiator comprises a photopolymerization initiator and a photosensitizer”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the photopolymerization initiator is selected one or more from a group consisting of” and “preferably, the photosensitizer is selected one or more from a group consisting of” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the resin composition further comprises 3-10 parts of a toughening resin”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the toughening resin is selected one or more from a group consisting of” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “the resin composition further comprises 0-5 parts of pigment-filler and 0.01-5 parts of additive”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the pigment-filler is selected one or more from a group consisting of” and “preferably, the thermal curing accelerator is” and “more preferably, the thermal curing accelerator is selected one or more from a group consisting of” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “wherein a thickness of the wet film is 25-50 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably, in a pre-drying process”, “preferably, an exposure energy”, “preferably, during the developing process”, and “preferably, during the thermal curing process” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and claim 9 depends on claim 8; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “Use of the resin composition according to claim 1…”. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “the biphenyl type epoxy resin has a structure…the naphthalene type epoxy resin has a structure…the naphthol type epoxy resin has a structure…the naphthyl ether type epoxy resin has a structure…the polyphenylene ether type epoxy resin has a structure…the bicyclopentadiene phenolic type epoxy resin has a structure…the crystalline anthracene type epoxy resin has a structure”. However, all of these epoxy resins are narrowing the “preferably” language of claim 2 which is considered indefinite and not a positive recitation. Thus, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minegishi et al. (JP2017156590). Translation attached.
Minegishi et al. teaches a photosensitive resin composition in Example 4 comprising 100 parts of alkali-soluble resin A-1, 15 parts of epoxy resin NC-3000, 15 parts of epoxy resin HP-7200, 1 part of photopolymerization initiator OXE02, 5 parts of photopolymerization initiator Irg784, 10 parts of A-DCP, and 5 parts of A-BPEF [0075] wherein resin A-1 has an acid number of 60mgKOH/g [0068] (claims 1, 4, 13, and 14); epoxy resin NC-3000 is equivalent to a first epoxy resin which is a low-dielectric epoxy resin with a dielectric constant of <3.5 having at least two epoxy groups and an epoxy equivalent of 160-2000 g/eq based on pages 20-21 of the instant specification (claims 1-3); epoxy resin HP-7200 is equivalent to a second epoxy resin different from the first of instant claim 1; and A-DCP is an acrylate having a dicyclopentadiene skeleton (tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate) from Shin-Nakamura Chemical Co. [0075] and has a weight average molecular weight of 200 to 2000 and a glass transition temperature of -20 to 100°C (claims 5, 15, and 16). Minegishi et al. also teaches the photosensitive resin composition of the present invention is suitably used for forming a cured film on a printed wiring board, that is, for a printed wiring board, more suitably used for forming a permanent insulating film, and specifically used for forming an overcoat agent, a solder resist, an interlayer insulating layer, or a coverlay [0066] (claim 10).
Claims 1-6, 10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitamura et al. (JP2014052599). Translation attached.
Kitamura et al. teaches a photosensitive resin composition in Example 1, 40.0 parts by mass (100 parts) of alkali-soluble resin A-1, 1.0 parts by mass (2.5 parts) of photoinitiator Irgacure 907, 0.1 parts by mass (0.25 parts) of photoinitiator Speedcure DETX, 1.0 parts by mass (2.5 parts) of photoinitiator Speedcure TPO, 0.1 parts by mass (0.25 parts) of photoinitiator OXE-02 (5.5 total parts photoinitiator claim 1), 10.0 parts by mass of flame retardant aluminum tris(diethylphosphinate), 5.0 parts by mass of aluminum hydroxide, 5.0 parts by mass (12.5 parts) of thermosetting compound NC-3000, 5.0 parts by mass (12.5 parts) of thermosetting compound YX4000, 0.3 parts by mass of thermosetting compound melamine, 0.1 parts by mass of thermosetting compound dicyandiamide, 10.0 parts by mass of photohardening compound SP4621BC, 2.0 parts by mass of photohardening compound KRM8296, 2.0 parts by mass (5 parts) of photohardening compound stearyl acrylate, 2.0 parts by mass (5 parts) of photohardening compound Kayarad R-684, 5.0 parts by mass of organic filler Art Pearl JB-8000, 1.0 parts by mass of inorganic ion exchanger IXE100, 0.5 parts by mass of colorant Leonor Blue FG-7351, 0.5 parts by weight of antifoaming agent KS-66, and 9.4 parts by mass of diluent diethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate [0106] wherein alkali-soluble resin A-1 has an acid value of 85mgKOH/g [0087] (claims 1, 4, 13, and 14); NC-3000 is equivalent to a first epoxy resin which is a low-dielectric epoxy resin with a dielectric constant of <3.5 having at least two epoxy groups and an epoxy equivalent of 160-2000 g/eq based on pages 20-21 of the instant specification (claims 1-3); YX4000 is a tetramethylbiphenol type epoxy resins manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation [0109] which is equivalent to a second epoxy resin different from the first of instant claims 1 and 9; photohardening compound stearyl acrylate is equivalent to an acrylate monomer having a weight average molecular weight of 200 to 2000 and a glass transition temperature of -20 to 100°C (claims 5, 15, and 16); Kayarad R-684: dicyclopentadiene dimethanol diacrylate [0110] which is also equivalent to an acrylate monomer having a weight average molecular weight of 200 to 2000 and a glass transition temperature of -20 to 100°C (claims 5, 15, and 16); Irgacure 907, Speedcure TPO, and OXE-02 are equivalent to a photopolymerization initiator and Speedcure DETX is equivalent to a photosensitizer of instant claims 6, 17, and 18. Kitamura et al. also teaches one embodiment of the present invention is a printed wiring board having a cured film obtained by patterning and photocuring a coating film formed by laminating, on a substrate, a dry film obtained by applying the photosensitive resin composition to a film and then drying the film [0021] (claim 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi et al. (JP2017156590).
With regard to claims 6, 17, and 18, Minegishi et al. teaches the above composition comprising two photopolymerization initiators but does not teach a photosensitizer.
However, Minegishi et al. teaches other examples of the photopolymerization initiator, the photoinitiation aid, and the sensitizer that can be suitably used in the photosensitive resin composition of the present invention include a benzoin compound, an acetophenone compound, an anthraquinone compound, a thioxanthone compound, a ketal compound, a benzophenone compound, and a tertiary amine compound [0037], the amount of the thioxanthone compound is preferably 20 parts by mass or less, more preferably 10 parts by mass or less, based on 100 parts by mass of the alkali-soluble resin (A). When the blending amount of the thioxanthone compound is too large, the thick-film curability is reduced, leading to an increase in the cost of the product, which is not preferable [0045], and these photopolymerization initiators, photoinitiation aids and sensitizers may be used alone or as a mixture of two or more thereof. The total amount of the photopolymerization initiator, the photoinitiation aid, and the sensitizer is preferably in the range of 35 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the (A) alkali-soluble resin. If the amount is more than 35 parts by mass, deep curability tends to decrease due to such light absorption [0048]. Therefore, 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 specific teachings of Minegishi et al. to include a mixture of a photopolymerization initiator and sensitizer and arrive at the instant claimed through routine experimentation of combining equally suitable components for the sought invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al. (JP2014052599).
With regard to claims 7-9, 19, and 20, Kitamura et al. teaches the above composition comprising 0.5 parts by weight (1.25 parts) of antifoaming agent KS-66 and 5.0 parts by mass of organic filler Art Pearl JB-8000 which is 12.5 parts and more than the claimed 0-5 parts of pigment-filler.
However, Kitamura et al. teaches among the fillers, an inorganic filler is a filler for mainly improving the mechanical strength and heat resistance of a cured coating film. The filler is not particularly limited as long as it is generally used, and examples of the inorganic filler include barium sulfate, crystalline silica, amorphous silica, talc, alumina, mica, magnesium oxide, and boron nitride. The organic filler is added to improve heat resistance and flexibility. The organic filler can be appropriately selected from those having a structure in which a resin such as a urethane-based resin, an acrylic-based resin, or a silicone-based resin is crosslinked in advance and having a single composition, and those having a multilayer structure such as a core-shell structure in which the components of the core and the shell are different. As the organic filler, a urethane-based or silicone-based filler having excellent flexibility is particularly preferable from the viewpoint of bending property and chemical resistance. Specific examples of commercially available urethane-based resins among the organic fillers include "RHC - 730" manufactured by Dainichiseika Color & Chemicals Mfg. Co., Ltd., "Art 800T C - 300", "Art 600T C - 400", "Art pearl C - 800", "Art pearl P - Pearl", and "Art pearl U - Pearl" manufactured by Negami Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd. Examples thereof include powder urethane resins such as "CF-600T", "JB - 400T", "JB - 800T", "CE - 400T", "CE - 800T", "MM - 120TW", "C -ce-MK", "MM-MK", "CC-MK 400R", and "JB-MK 8000". The amount of the filler to be blended may be appropriately selected, but is preferably 300 or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the alkali-soluble resin from the viewpoint of preventing a decrease in the alkali developability, the photosensitivity, and the bendability [0072] which encompasses both the toughening resin of instant claims 7, 9, 19, and 20, based on page 13 of the instant specification, and the pigment-filler of instant claims 8 and 9. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, Kitamura et al. teaches the amount of fillers can effect developability, photosensitivity, and bendability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amounts of the toughening resin and pigment-filler for the intended application in order to prevent a decrease in alkali developability, photosensitivity, and bendability.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi et al. (JP2017156590) or Kitamura et al. (JP2014052599) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN107942618). Translation attached.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Minegishi et al. teaches each of the compositions obtained in Examples 1 to 5 and Comparative Examples 1 to 3 shown in Table 1 above was applied to the entire surface of a substrate by screen printing so that the film thickness after drying was 20 μ m, dried at 80 ° C. for 30 minutes, and allowed to cool to room temperature. Using an exposure apparatus equipped with a high-pressure mercury lamp (short arc lamp), the substrate was subjected to solid exposure at an optimum exposure amount and then developed with a 30 ° C. 1% by weight aqueous solution of sodium bicarbonate for 60 seconds under a spray pressure of 0. 2MPa. This substrate was irradiated with ultraviolet rays in a UV conveyor oven under the condition of an integrated exposure amount of 1000mJ/cm2, and then heated at 160 ° C. for 60 minutes to be cured. The obtained evaluation substrate was evaluated in the following manner [0077]. Minegishi et al. also teaches the photosensitive resin composition of the present invention may be used in the form of a dry film or a liquid. When it is used as a liquid, it may be one liquid or two or more liquids. The dry film of the present invention has a resin layer obtained by applying the photosensitive resin composition of the present invention onto a carrier film and drying the photosensitive resin composition. When the dry film is formed, first, the photosensitive resin composition of the present invention is diluted with the organic solvent to adjust the viscosity to an appropriate value, and then It applies to thickness uniform on a carrier film with a comma coating machine, a blade coating machine, a lip coating machine, a rod coating machine, a squeeze coating machine, a reverse coating machine, a transfer roll coater, a photogravure coating machine, a spray coater, etc. Thereafter, the applied composition is usually dried at a temperature of 50 to 130 ° C. for 1 to 30 minutes, whereby a resin layer can be formed. The thickness of the coating film is not particularly limited, but in general, the thickness after drying is appropriately selected from the range of 10 to 150 μ m, and preferably 20 to 60 μ m [0055-0056] and when the photosensitive resin composition of the present invention contains a thermosetting component, a cured film (cured product) excellent in various properties such as heat resistance, chemical resistance, moisture absorption resistance, adhesiveness, and electrical properties can be formed by further heating the composition to a temperature of about 100 to 180 °C to thermally cure (post-cure) the composition [0061]. Kitamura et al. teaches the photosensitive resin composition prepared as described above was coated in the following manner to prepare a test piece. A substrate for a flexible wiring board in which a circuit pattern was formed on a polyimide film (Kapton 100H, manufactured by Du Pont-Toray Co., Ltd.) was subjected to a surface treatment with dilute sulfuric acid (3%). The negative film which has the pattern which made it translucency except the land of a circuit pattern was stuck on the coating film after predrying, and ultraviolet rays were exposed from on to 500mJ/cm2 with the exposure device (oak company make HMW-680GW). Thereafter, the coating film was developed with a 1% sodium carbonate developer at 30 ° C. and then cured in a BOX furnace at 150 ° C. for 60 minutes to form a cured coating film on the substrate, thereby obtaining test pieces of Examples 1 to 17 and Comparative Examples 1 to 3. The thickness of each of the cured coating films was 20 to 23 μ m [0111]. Minegishi et al. and Kitamura et al. do not teach hot roll filming.
However, Li et al. teaches other known methods using dry film resists to produce circuit boards which includes: A photosensitive dry film was prepared, the photosensitive resin composition solution prepared in Table 1 was coated on a 15 μm PET film by using a coating machine, the photosensitive resin composition solution prepared in Table 1 was coated on a 15 μm PET film, dried in an oven for 8 min, cooled by a hot rubber compression roller, and thermally attached to a PET film with a thickness of 18 μm at a certain pressure and temperature, thereby obtaining a dry film resist with a thickness of 40 μm of the photosensitive resin composition. Examples 1, 2, 3 and Comparative Examples 1,2 photosensitive dry film resist were evaluated using a 40 μm thick photosensitive resin thickness to evaluate the adhesion and development rate. The copper-clad plate was polished by a polishing machine, washed with water, and wiped dry to obtain a bright and fresh copper surface. The laminating machine is provided with a roller temperature of 110° C a conveying speed of 1.5 m/min, and a thermal bonding under a standard pressure. Exposure was performed using an M -552 type exposure machine, and a Stouffer 21 grid exposure ruler was used to perform a photosensitivity test. The line width/line distance of the selected film was gradually increased from 10 um to 100 um; the developing solution was 1% aqueous sodium carbonate solution, the developing temperature was 30° C the developing pressure was 1.8 bar, the developing speed was 1.5 m/min, and the model was the minimum time required to completely dissolve the unexposed part of the resist layer as the minimum developing time [pages 5-6]. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, 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 methods of Minegishi or Kitamura to prepare a solder resist for a printed circuit board using the steps of Li et al. through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2006/0102051, JP2004155916, and U.S. 2013/0256017 is obvious over at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 EST M-F.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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.
/Anna Malloy/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722