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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/17/2026 and 3/3/2026 have been considered but they are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues on p. 12 of Remarks that Zhang et al. teaches the biochannels (213) inclined and declined in a single plane only and not inclined/declined across vertical planes from the upper main body to the lower main body, as required by newly amended claims 1 and 20. The examiner agrees, however, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Zhang et al. in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1) as will be discussed in the 35 USC § 103 section below.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "the gene amplification chip is positioned between the lower main body and the upper main body" in lines 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "the gene amplification chip is positioned between the lower main body and the upper main body" in lines 28-29 be deleted as "the gene amplification chip configured to be inserted between the upper main body and the lower main body" is already recited in lines 16-17 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113174332 A) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus capable of gene amplification (p. 1, line 19 “liver and kidney chip structure”), the apparatus comprising an upper main body (Fig. 1 21 top layer chip) comprising a first inlet capable of receiving a sealing solution (Fig. 1 211 inlet channel), a second inlet capable of receiving a sample solution (Fig. 1 212 liquid inlet channel), and an upper passage that allows the sample solution and the sealing solution to move by capillary action (Fig. 1 213 bionic channel);
a lower main body disposed to oppose the upper main body (Fig. 1 23 bottom layer chip), and comprising a lower passage (Fig. 1 231 second liquid inlet column) through which the sealing solution is capable of moving by capillary action after being injected from the first inlet of the upper main body;
a gene amplification chip configured to be inserted between the upper main body and the lower main body (Fig. 1 22 middle layer chip); and
a porous medium configured to be inserted between the upper main body and the lower main body (Fig. 1 210 first filter membrane or 220 second filter membrane),
wherein the upper passage comprises a first injection path (Fig. 3 242 first main channel) for guiding the sample solution and the sealing solution toward the gene amplification chip, a first main flow path disposed on an upper portion of the gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 222 middle channel, one of “five intermediate flow channels” p. 18, line 724), and a first discharge path for guiding the sample solution and the sealing solution toward the porous medium (Fig. 3 247 second main channel),
the lower passage comprises a second injection path for guiding the sealing solution toward the gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 249 third main channel), a second main flow path disposed on a lower portion of the gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 a second of 222 middle channel disposed lower than a first of 222, “five intermediate flow channels” (p. 18, line 724)), and a second discharge path for guiding the sealing solution toward the porous medium (Fig. 1 253 fourth main channel), and
the gene amplification chip is positioned between the lower main body and the upper main body in a thickness direction of the apparatus (Fig. 1 22 middle layer chip positioned in between 21 top layer chip and 23 bottom layer chip).
Zhang et al. teaches wherein the bionic channels 213 are inclined and declined (Fig. 2), but does not teach wherein the first main flow path is linearly inclined downward toward the lower main body with a first inclination angle relative to the thickness direction or wherein the second main flow path is linearly inclined upward toward the upper main body with a second inclination angle relative to the thickness direction. However, Mayo et al. teaches that an inclined channel where one end is elevated relative to the other end so that gravity drives liquids through the channel is known in the art (para. 0040) and a channel inclined upwards so that air pressure or electromotive force drives liquids (para. 0040). Though Zhang et al. does not teach a channel inclined downward in a thickness direction or a channel inclined upward in a thickness direction, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an inclined/declined channel because the substitution of one known element for another would have predictably resulted in a channel that uses gravity to drive liquid through the channel (inclined downward) and a channel that uses air pressure or electromotive force to drive liquid through the channel (inclined upward), with reasonable expectation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Zhang et al. with the teachings of Mayo et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding the limitations “receiving a sealing solution”, “receiving a sample solution”, “the sample solution and the sealing solution to move by capillary action”, and “through which the sealing solution moves by capillary action after being injected from the first inlet of the upper main body”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a membrane layer that discharges filtrate to the bottom chip from the top chip (p. 3, line 101) and would be structurally capable of receiving a sealing solution, receiving a sample solution, and allowing the sample solution and the sealing solution to move by capillary action.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. does not teach an apparatus for gene amplification wherein at least one of the first main flow path and the second main flow path has an inclination angle of 0° to 35°, but does teach that the angle is an acute angle (p. 16, line 642), which can be read as an angle of 0° to 90°. It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05). The claimed range is obvious in view of Zhang et al. because Zhang et al. discloses a range of 0° to 90°, which overlaps the claimed range of 0° to 35°.
Regarding the limitation “wherein a height of the first discharge path is expressed as h1- L tan α1, h1 denotes the height of the first discharge path, L denotes a length of each of the first main flow path and the second main flow path, and α1 denotes the first inclination angle of the first main flow path, and wherein a height of the second discharge path is expressed as h2 - L tan α2, h2 denotes the height of the second discharge path, and α2 denotes the second inclination angle of the second main flow path”, it has been held that changes in size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, as a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art (MPEP § 2144.04 IV). Modifying Zhang et al.’s device such that the dimensions of the flow paths are expressed as “h1- L tan α1” and “h2- L tan α2” would amount to merely a recitation of relative dimensions, as Zhang et al. discloses flow paths with inclination angles overlapping the claimed range and would therefore be capable of having the recited ratio of height and inclination angle.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein at least one of the first injection path, the first discharge path, the second injection path, and the second discharge path has a width which is not constant in a flow direction of the sample solution or the sealing solution (Fig. 3 244 first end connected to 242 first main channel and 249 third main channel, 245 second end connected to 247 second main channel and 253 fourth main channel).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein a width of the first injection path and a width of the second injection path linearly decrease in the flow direction of the sample solution or the sealing solution (Fig. 3 244 first end connected to 242 first main channel and 249 third main channel, 245 second end connected to 247 second main channel and 253 fourth main channel).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein a width of the first discharge path and a width of the second discharge path linearly increase in the flow direction of the sample solution or the sealing solution (Fig. 3 244 first end connected to 242 first main channel and 249 third main channel, 245 second end connected to 247 second main channel and 253 fourth main channel).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein the upper main body further comprises an auxiliary channel which is provided along the upper passage, and which allows the sealing solution to move by capillary action through the auxiliary channel (Fig. 3 243 first branch channel, 246 second branch channel).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein the upper passage is stepped (Fig. 1 213 bionic channel), but does not teach wherein the auxiliary channel is stepped. Nonetheless, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Modifying the device of Zhang et al. such that the auxiliary channel is stepped instead of the upper passage would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in a chip with a stepped channel.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification capable of housing a sealing solution that is a non-polar solution and is not mixed with the sample solution.
Regarding the limitation “the sealing solution is a non-polar solution that is not mixed with the sample solution”, it has been held that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (MPEP § 2115). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to be for receiving and transporting functional liquid for cell culture (p. 15, line 597) and would be structurally capable of housing a sealing solution that is a non-polar solution and is not mixed with the sample solution.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein the porous medium comprises a hydrophilic material (p. 19, line 765 “glycoprotein”), and has a plurality of pores or a plurality of pin type microstructures (p. 17, line 695 “porous polyester membrane with a pore size…”).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification comprising a first inlet and a second inlet, but does not teach wherein a diameter of the first inlet is greater than a diameter of the second inlet. Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, as a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art (MPEP § 2144.04 IV). Modifying Zhang et al.’s device such that the diameter of the first inlet is greater than the diameter of the second inlet would amount to merely a change in size.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein the upper main body further comprises an air pressure maintenance hole disposed on an upper portion of the porous medium (Fig. 1 221 first through hole or 223 second through hole).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein the gene amplification chip comprises a substrate (p. 21, line 867 “PDMS”), and an array of through holes which pass through the substrate in a direction from an upper surface to a lower surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 221 first through hole, 223 second through hole).
Regarding the limitation “a gene amplification reaction occurs”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to be a growth microenvironment for cells (p. 10, line 390) and would be structurally capable of facilitating a gene amplification reaction.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113174332 A) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Velev et al. (US 2020/0163656 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification comprising a first injection path, a second injection path, a first discharge path, and a second discharge path, but does not teach wherein a width of the first injection path, a width of the second injection path, a width of the first discharge path, and a width of the second discharge path are in a range of 1 µm to 5 mm; and a width of the first main flow path and a width of the second main flow path are in a range of 1 µm to 10 cm. However, Velev et al. teaches a channel width of about 100 µm to 1000 µm (para. 0008). Velev et al. teaches that a channel width of this size allows fluid to flow by capillary flow (para. 0059). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Velev et al. configuration of a channel width of about 100 µm to 1000 µm in Zhang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow capillary flow of fluid through the channel. This method for improving Zhang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Velev et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. and Velev et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification comprising an upper passage and a lower passage, but does not teach wherein the upper passage and the lower passage comprise a hydrophilic material having a contact angle of 90° or less with respect to water. However, Velev et al. teaches a hydrophilic material (abstract “hydrophilic substrate”) with a contact angle of less than 90° (para. 0046). Velev et al. teaches that hydrophilic surfaces have an affinity for water and a tendency to absorb water (para. 0046). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Velev et al. configuration of a hydrophilic material in Zhang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would absorb water. This method for improving Zhang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Velev et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. and Velev et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113174332 A) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shioya et al. (US 2021/0237055 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein a diameter of each of the plurality of pores or each of the plurality of pin type microstructures is in a range of 0.001 µm to 100 µm (p. 17, line 695 “0.4 microns”), and is smaller than a width of the upper passage and a width of the lower passage. Zhang et al. does not teach wherein a distance between the plurality of pores or a distance between the plurality of pin type microstructures is in a range of 0.001 µm to 100 µm. However, Shioya et al. teaches a distance between pores in a range of 6 µm to 12 µm (para. 0102). Shioya et al. teaches that this distance between pores is sufficient for an immunoassay to be accommodated while decreasing manufacturing yield of the immunoassay cups (para. 0102). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Shioya et al. configuration of a distance between pores in the range of 6 µm to 12 µm in Zhang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would be sufficient for an immunoassay to be accommodated while decreasing manufacturing yield. This method for improving Zhang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Shioya et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. and Shioya et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113174332 A) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hung et al. (US 10,519,494 B2) (already of record).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification wherein the diameter of the first inlet is greater than or equal to a width of an injection path of the upper passage (Fig. 3 211 inlet channel, 242 first main channel). Zhang et al. does not teach wherein the diameter of the second inlet is in a range of 0.1 µm to 4500 µm. However, Hung et al. teaches an inlet diameter of 2.5 mm or less (Col. 14, line 38), which can be read as 0 µm to 2500 µm. Hung et al. teaches that this size allows single cells to be isolated as the diameter is close to the diameter of cells (Col. 43, line 53). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Hung et al. configuration of an inlet diameter of 2.5 mm or less in Zhang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow single cells to be isolated as the diameter is close to the diameter of cells. This method for improving Zhang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hung et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. and Hung et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113174332 A) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2021/0340482 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for gene amplification comprising a gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 22 middle layer chip). Zhang et al. does not teach wherein the gene amplification chip comprises a photothermal film disposed on the upper surface and the lower surface of the substrate, wherein the photothermal film is configured to receive light and generate heat by photonic heating using the received light. However, Matsumoto teaches a photothermal film (para. 0066), wherein the photothermal film is configured to receive light and generate heat by photonic heating using the received light (para. 0064). Matsumoto teaches that the photothermal film converts light into heat, thereby forming a cell adhesion inhibitory area (para. 0064). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Matsumoto configuration of a photothermal film in Zhang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would convert light into heat, forming a cell adhesion inhibitory area. This method for improving Zhang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Matsumoto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. and Matsumoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113174332 A) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Mayo et al. (US 2018/0030125 A1) and Hung et al. (US 10,252,266 B2) (already of record).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang et al. teaches an apparatus for detecting a microfluid, the apparatus comprising a gene amplifier (Fig. 1 20 bionic glomerular chip structure); wherein the gene amplifier comprises an upper main body (Fig. 1 21 top layer chip) comprising a first inlet capable of receiving a sealing solution (Fig. 1 211 inlet channel), a second inlet capable of receiving a sample solution (Fig. 1 212 liquid inlet channel), and an upper passage that allows the sample solution and the sealing solution to move by capillary action (Fig. 1 213 bionic channel);
a lower main body disposed to oppose the upper main body (Fig. 1 23 bottom layer chip), and comprising a lower passage (Fig. 1 231 second liquid inlet column) through which the sealing solution is capable of moving by capillary action after being injected from the first inlet of the upper main body;
a gene amplification chip configured to be inserted between the upper main body and the lower main body (Fig. 1 22 middle layer chip positioned in between 21 top layer chip and 23 bottom layer chip); and
a porous medium configured to be inserted between the upper main body and the lower main body (Fig. 1 210 first filter membrane or 220 second filter membrane),
wherein the upper passage comprises a first injection path (Fig. 3 242 first main channel) for guiding the sample solution and the sealing solution toward the gene amplification chip, a first main flow path disposed on an upper portion of the gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 222 middle channel, one of “five intermediate flow channels” p. 18, line 724), and a first discharge path for guiding the sample solution and the sealing solution toward the porous medium (Fig. 3 247 second main channel),
the lower passage has a second injection path for guiding the sealing solution toward the gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 249 third main channel), a second main flow path disposed on a lower portion of the gene amplification chip (Fig. 1 a second of 222 middle channel disposed lower than a first of 222, “five intermediate flow channels” (p. 18, line 724)), and a second discharge path for guiding the sealing solution toward the porous medium (Fig. 1 253 fourth main channel), and
the gene amplification chip is positioned between the lower main body and the upper main body in a thickness direction of the apparatus (Fig. 1 22 middle layer chip positioned in between 21 top layer chip and 23 bottom layer chip)
Zhang et al. teaches wherein the bionic channels 213 are inclined and declined (Fig. 2), but does not teach wherein the first main flow path is linearly inclined downward toward the lower main body with a first inclination angle relative to the thickness direction or wherein the second main flow path is linearly inclined upward toward the upper main body with a second inclination angle relative to the thickness direction. However, Mayo et al. teaches that an inclined channel where one end is elevated relative to the other end so that gravity drives liquids through the channel is known in the art (para. 0040) and a channel inclined upwards so that air pressure or electromotive force drives liquids (para. 0040). Though Zhang et al. does not teach a channel inclined downward in a thickness direction or a channel inclined upward in a thickness direction, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an inclined/declined channel because the substitution of one known element for another would have predictably resulted in a channel that uses gravity to drive liquid through the channel (inclined downward) and a channel that uses air pressure or electromotive force to drive liquid through the channel (inclined upward), with reasonable expectation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Zhang et al. with the teachings of Mayo et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Regarding the limitations “receiving a sealing solution”, “receiving a sample solution”, “the sample solution and the sealing solution to move by capillary action”, and “through which the sealing solution moves by capillary action after being injected from the first inlet of the upper main body”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a membrane layer that discharges filtrate to the bottom chip from the top chip (p. 3, line 101) and would be structurally capable of receiving a sealing solution, receiving a sample solution, and allowing the sample solution and the sealing solution to move by capillary action.
Zhang et al. does not teach an optical unit comprising a light emitter and a light detector; and a processor configured to detect an amplified gene by analyzing the optical signal. However, Hung et al. teaches an optical unit (Col. 5, lines 16-17) comprising a light emitter (Col. 29, lines 43-44 “emit…wavelengths of light”) and a light detector (Col. 29, lines 43-44 “detect multiple wavelengths of light”); and a processor capable of detecting an amplified gene by analyzing the optical signal (Col. 5, lines 18-27). Hung et al. teaches that the optical module can optically determine which microchambers in the microfluidic device have successfully run a PCR reaction (Col. 30, lines 11-12).
Regarding the limitation “to emit light onto a sample solution and to measure an optical signal scattered or reflected from the sample solution, while a gene amplification reaction is performed in a gene amplification chip of the gene amplifier, or after the gene amplification reaction is complete”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Hung et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have an optical module (Col. 5, lines 16-17) connected to processors (Col. 5, lines 18-20) and would be structurally capable of emitting light onto a sample solution and measuring an optical signal scattered or reflected from the sample solution, while a gene amplification reaction is performed in a gene amplification chip of the gene amplifier, or after the gene amplification reaction is complete.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Hung et al. configuration of an optical unit comprising a light emitter and a light detector; and a processor configured to detect an amplified gene by analyzing the optical signal in Zhang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would determine a successfully run reaction. This method for improving Zhang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hung et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. and Hung et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
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 ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is (703)756-5517. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799