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
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.
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, 6, 8, 28-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112009060 A with an updated machine translation (concurrently submitted) being used as the English language equivalent translation (hereinafter “Li”).Regarding claim 1 Li teaches an environmentally friendly flooring material (composite decorative board) made from PETG (abstract). Li teaches the floor comprises a substrate layer 4, 6 including a balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6, and a substrate (second structural layer) 4 (Figure 1, and last two paragraphs on page 8). Li teaches the balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6 is directly connected to the substrate (second structural layer) 4 (Figure 1). Li teaches the ingredients of the balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6 or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 include PETG (poly(ethylene terephthalateco-1,4-cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate) (PETG) resin) (page 4). Li teaches: (i) the balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6 has a PETG weight of 49.5 to 99.4 wt% (page 4, 6th paragraph); and (ii) the substrate (second structural layer) 4, also referred to as an extruded PETG board, has a PETG weight of 17.95 to 49.8 wt% (page 4, 2nd and 7th paragraph), which corresponds to a weight of the PETG resin of each of the first structural layer in the at least one first structural layer is greater than a weight of the PETG resin of the second layer. When converted to a wt% basis, the claim requires: (1) the at least one first structural layer includes 52.4 to 77.6 wt% (70/133.5 to 80/103.1) of the PETG; and (2) the second structural layer includes 11.5 to 20.7 wt% (13/113 to 18/86.9) of the PETG. Range (i), as taught by Li, significantly encompasses claimed range (1), and range (ii), as taught by Li, overlaps claimed range (2), establishing prima facie cases of obviousness. Li teaches a thickness of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 ranges from 0.1-0.7 mm (page 4, 6th paragraph), which significantly encompasses the claimed range. Li teaches a thickness of the substrate (second structural layer) 4 ranges from 3-10 mm (page 4, 7th paragraph), which significantly encompasses the claimed range. Regarding the physical properties/functions (stability, bending resistance, viscosity) of the at least one first structural layer, the second structural layer, and the PETG resin thereof, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose: (1) the at least one first structural layer being a structural layer that controls a stability of the composite decorative board; (2) the second structural layer being a structural layer that controls a bending resistance and an impact resistance of the composite decorative board; and/or (3) a viscosity of the PETG resin is within a range of 0.85 dL/gt0.015 dL/g, the claimed properties/functions are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Li reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 6 In addition, Li teaches the flooring material (composite decorative board) further comprises a decoration (decorative) layer 3, wherein the substrate (second structural layer) 4 is located between the decorative layer 3 and the balance layer (one first structural layer of the at least one first structural layer) 6 (Figure 1 and page 7, 5th full paragraph).Regarding claim 8 In addition, the ingredients or starting materials as recited in claim 8 is directed to an intermediate product, where the claims are directed to the formed PETG resin or final product. It appears the content of the ingredients recited in claim 8 fails to imply any additional structure to the final product or claimed PETG resin. Therefore, the claimed PETG resin, which is rendered obvious by Li, is also considered to render obvious the starting materials from claim 8.Regarding claim 28 As previously mentioned, Li teaches a thickness of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 ranges from 0.1-0.7 mm (page 4, 6th paragraph). Li also teaches a wear-resistant layer 2 and a thickness of the wear-resistant layer 2 ranges from 0.07 to 1 mm (page 4, 3rd paragraph), which corresponds to embodiments where a thickness of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 is greater than the thickness of the wear-resistant layer 2. In embodiments where the thickness of the wear-resistant layer is less than 0.7 mm, a thickness difference range of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and the wear-resistant layer 2 is from greater than 0 mm to 0.63 mm, which encompasses the claimed range.Regarding claim 29 As previously mentioned, Li teaches a thickness of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 ranges from 0.1-0.7 mm (page 4, 6th paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range. Li teaches a thickness of the substrate (second structural layer) 4 ranges from 3-10 mm (page 4, 7th paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding claim 30 As previously mentioned, Li teaches a thickness of the wear-resistant layer 2 ranges from 0.07 to 1 mm (page 4, 3rd paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range.Regarding claim 32 When converted to a wt% basis, the claim requires: (1) the first structural layer includes 63.4 wt% (75/118.3) of the PETG in the first structural layer; and (2) the second structural layer includes 15.5 wt% of the PETG in the second structural layer. Li teaches the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 has a PETG weight of 49.5 to 99.4 wt% (page 4, 6th paragraph), which encompasses the claimed wt% in element (i). Li also teaches the substrate (second structural layer) 4, also referred to as an extruded PETG board, has a PETG weight of 17.95 to 49.8 wt% (page 4, 2nd and 7th paragraph), which does not overlap with the claimed wt% in element (ii) but the proportion is so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP §2144.05(I), second paragraph.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 112778930 A with a machine translation (submitted on 28 February 2025) being used as the English language equivalent translation (hereinafter “Liang”).Regarding claim 9 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Li teaches the use of inorganic fillers, such as magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, zinc borate, etc. (page 4, 7th paragraph). Li does not explicitly teach the balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6 or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes a compatibilizer. Liang teaches a PHA/PETG film (abstract). Liang teaches the film includes a maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer which contains both polar groups and non-polar groups, which can react with fillers, including inorganic fillers, to improve the compatibility between blends (page 5, 3rd paragraph, and page 7, 2nd full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ingredients of the balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6 or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 of Li with the maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer of Liang to improve the bonding compatibility of the resin composition with the inorganic fillers of Li.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Liang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of an article titled “Novel Functionalised Ethylene Acrylate Copolymers as Polymer Modifiers” by Karlheinz Hausmann (hereinafter “Hausmann”).Regarding claim 21 The limitations for claim 9 have been set forth above. As previously noted, the combination of Li and Liang teaches a maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer which contains both polar groups and non-polar groups, which can react with fillers, including inorganic fillers, to improve the compatibility between blends (Liang – page 5, 3rd paragraph, and page 7, 2nd full paragraph). Liang also teaches type of the maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer is not limited (page 5, 3rd paragraph and page 7, 2nd full paragraph). The combination of Li and Liang does not explicitly teach the compatibilizer is a maleic anhydride grafted ethylene acrylate copolymer. Hausmann teaches an ethylene acrylate copolymer which is grafted with a reactive functional group, such as maleic anhydride (summary, right hand column on page 122, and under the “Conclusion” heading on page 124). Hausmann teaches the functionalized polymer provides excellent compatibility with both polar and non-polar polymers, yields superior impact properties and excellent flowability in polymer blends, and may couple mineral fillers to polymer matrices. The teachings from Liang and Hausmann establishes a functional equivalence between the maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer from Liang and the maleic anhydride grafted ethylene acrylate copolymer from Hausmann for use as a compatibilizer in polyester resin blends. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer of Liang, and substituting the maleic anhydride grafting polymer of Liang with the maleic anhydride grafted ethylene acrylate copolymer, as suggested by Hausmann, motivated by the desire to form a conventional maleic anhydride grafting polymer for use as a compatibilizer, comprising the maleic anhydride grafted ethylene acrylate copolymer known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such a maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer.
Claims 22 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0176167 (hereinafter “Shin”), in view of an article titled “Anti-foams and Defoamers” by WaterTech of America, Inc. (hereinafter “WTA”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0297307 (hereinafter “Shinmyo”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0168358 (hereinafter “Fung”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0325531 (hereinafter “Kuhn”) and an article titled “Montan Waxes – High-Performance Additives for PVC” by Dr. Michael Schiller (hereinafter “Schiller”), and in view of Liang.Regarding claims 22 and 26 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above.PETG content: In addition, Li teaches: (i) the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 has a PETG weight of 49.5 to 99.4 wt% (page 4, 6th paragraph); and (ii) the substrate (second structural layer) 4, also referred to as an extruded PETG board, has a PETG weight of 17.95 to 49.8 wt% (page 4, 2nd and 7th paragraph). When converted to a wt% basis, the claim requires: (1) the at least one first structural layer includes 52.4 to 77.6 wt% (70/133.5 to 80/103.1) of the PETG; and (2) the second structural layer includes 11.5 to 20.7 wt% (13/113 to 18/86.9) of the PETG. Range (i), as taught by Li, significantly encompasses claimed range (1), and range (ii), as taught by Li, overlaps claimed range (2), establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.PET content: Li does not teach the PETG resin in the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes a PET resin. Shin teaches a rear surface layer (first structural layer) or layer A and an intermediate layer (second structural layer) or layer B includes a glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) resin (Examples 1-6, and paragraphs [0076] – [0078]). Shin teaches the use of PETG resin remedies disadvantages of PET resins, which includes poor moldability, high rates of defects, and difficulty in uniform printability when adding a large number of additive, but the use of the PETG resin requires a higher cost (paragraphs [0007] – [0010] and [0063]). Shin teaches adding a large amount of PET to a sheet of PETG resin reduces manufacturing costs (paragraph [0059]). Shin does not explicitly teach the rear surface layer (first structural layer) includes 20-30 parts by weight of PET based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the rear surface layer (first structural layer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the PET and PETG resins for each of the rear surface layer (first structural layer) using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired balance between good moldability, low defects, uniform printability, and low manufacturing costs for the rear surface layer (first structural layer). It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the PETG resin in the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 of Li with the PET of Shin to reduce manufacturing costs.Defoamer content: In addition, Li does not explicitly teach 8-10 parts by weight of a defoamer based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6. WTA teaches is use of anti-foams and defoamers are known to prevent or treat an existing foam issue, which may cause defects with surface coatings, bacterial growth, deposit formation, downtime, and added costs for cleaning (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the balance layer (at least one first structural layer) 6 of Li, with a defoamer, as taught by WTA, to prevent the occurrence of a foam issue thereby preventing defects with coatings, bacterial growth, deposit formation, downtime, and added costs for cleaning. The combination of Li and WTA does not explicitly teach the defoamer having a content of 8-10 parts by weight based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the defoamer for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired foam issue prevention effect. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Flame Retardant content: In addition, Li does not explicitly teach either: the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes 5-10 parts by weight of a flame retardant based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6; and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 0-10 parts by weight of a flame retardant based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. Shinmyo teaches a decorative sheet comprising a substrate layer made of a thermoplastic resin, including PET-G, admixed with a flame retardant to ensure flame retardance to the substrate (abstract and paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin compositions for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 with the flame retardant of Shinmyo to improve flame retardance for each of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 of the flooring material. The combination of Li and Shinmyo does not explicitly teach the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes 5-10 parts by weight of a flame retardant based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6; and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 0-10 parts by weight of a flame retardant based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the flame retardant for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired level of flame retardance to the substrate layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Toughening Agent content: In addition, Li does not explicitly teach the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes 0-3 parts by weight of a toughening agent based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6; and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 0-2 parts by weight of a toughening agent based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. Fung teaches a modified polyester resin composition comprising a combination of PET, PETG, and a modified polymer at least comprising EPM or TPU, where the modified polymer includes a polyolefin elastomer (toughening agent) and improves the physical properties of the modified polyester resin composition, including an enhancement to physical toughness and tear strength (abstract and paragraphs [0022] – [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin compositions for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 with the modified polymer of Fung to improve physical toughness and tear strength for each of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 of the flooring material. The combination of Li and Fung does not explicitly teach the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes 0-3 parts by weight of a toughening agent based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6; and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 0-2 parts by weight of a toughening agent based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the polyolefin elastomer (toughening agent) for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired improved physical toughness and tear strength to the substrate layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Lubricant, Lubricating Dispersant and Release Agent content: In addition, Li teaches the resin compositions undergo a molding process during manufacture (abstract, page 3, last paragraph through page 5). Li does not explicitly teach: (1) the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes 0.1-0.5 parts by weight of a lubricant based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6; and/or (2) the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes: (i) 1-3 parts by weight of a lubricating dispersant; and (ii) 0.4-1.0 parts by weight of a release agent based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4, where the release agent is a montane wax. Kuhn teaches a multilayer structure including resins of PETG and PET (abstract, paragraphs [0061] and [0084], and claim 27). Kuhn teaches the resins can include conventional additives, including mold release agents, where the release agent includes pentaerythrityl tetrastearate (PETS) (lubricant/lubricating dispersant or release agent) (paragraphs [0060] and [0101]). Schiller also teaches conventional mold release agents include montane wax (abstract on page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin compositions for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 of Li with the mold release agents (lubricant/lubricating dispersant and/or release agent) of Kuhn and/or Schiller to aid in facilitating the removal of the sheet upon completion of a molding process to manufacture said sheet. The combination of Li, Kuhn, and Schiller does not explicitly teach the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 includes 0.1-0.5 parts by weight of a lubricant based on 103.1-133.5 parts by weight of the balance layer (first structural layer) 6; and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 1-3 parts by weight of a lubricating dispersant and 0.4-1.0 parts by weight of a release agent based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the mold release agents (lubricant/lubricating dispersant and release agent) for the balance layer (first structural layer) 6 and/or the substrate (second structural layer) 4 using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired releasing effect of the sheet from the molding apparatus upon completion of a molding process. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Inorganic Filler content: In addition, Li teaches the extruded PETG board or substrate (second structural layer) 4 comprises inorganic fillers, such as magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, zinc borate, and ammonium octamolybdate (page 4, 7th paragraph). Li teaches magnesium hydroxide is present in an amount ranging from 0-40 parts by weight, aluminum hydroxide is present in an amount ranging from 0-40 parts by weight, and zinc borate is present in an amount ranging from 0-20 parts by weight, and ammonium octamolybdate is present in an amount ranging from 0-5 parts by weight (Id). These ranges correspond to an inorganic filler content ranging from 17.95 (100/206) to 81.7 (455/557) wt%. When converted to a wt% basis, the claim requires the second structural layer to include 63.7 to 88.6 wt% (72/113 to 77/86.9) of the inorganic filler of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. The range disclosed by Li overlaps the claimed range.Compatibilizer content: In addition, Li does not explicitly teach the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 0.5-2.0 parts by weight of a compatibilizer based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. Liang teaches a PHA/PETG film (abstract). Liang teaches the film includes a maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer which contains both polar groups and non-polar groups, which can react with fillers, including inorganic fillers, to improve the compatibility between blends (page 5, 3rd paragraph, and page 7, 2nd full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate (second structural layer) 4 of Li with the maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer of Liang to improve the bonding compatibility of the resin composition with the inorganic fillers disclosed by Li. The combination of Li and Liang does not explicitly teach the substrate (second structural layer) 4 includes 0.5-2.0 parts by weight of a compatibilizer based on 86.9-113 parts by weight of the substrate (second structural layer) 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the maleic anhydride grafting compatibilizer for the substrate (second structural layer) 4 using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired improvement to the bonding compatibility between the inorganic filler and resin composition. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0194592 (hereinafter “Lindsay”).Regarding claim 31 The limitations for claim 6 have been set forth above. In addition, Li teaches the flooring material further comprises an ultraviolet (UV) coating layer 1 and a sound-absorbing layer (silent layer) 5, wherein the UV coating layer 1 is located above the decoration (decorative) layer 3, and the sound-absorbing layer (silent layer) 5 is located below the substrate layer 4, 6 (page 7, last paragraph though page 8, 1st full paragraph, and Figure 1). Li also teaches the sound-absorbing layer (silent layer) 5 includes a foam material (page 9, 1st line). Li does not explicitly teach the sound-absorbing layer (silent layer) 5 includes one of an ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) silent pad, and a cork pad. Lindsay teaches a sound attenuating material (abstract). Lindsay teaches the sound attenuating materials provides sound-absorbing or noise-attenuating properties and comprises a foam or heavy sound-deadening material (silent layer), such as a heavy layer of EVA (EVA silent pad) (paragraphs [0015] – [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the foam material of Li with the heavy layer of EVA of Lindsay motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of sound attenuating materials. See MPEP §2144.06(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 18 May 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 26 and 28 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 26 and 28 under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-31, filed 18 May 2025, with respect to the rejections of: claims 1 and 3 under 35 §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li; claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 22-25 under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Kang; claim 9 under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Kang and Liang; claim 21 under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Kang, Liang, and Hausmann; and claim 26 under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Kang, WTA, Shinmyo, Fung, Kuhn and Liang have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made in the updated rejection of record.
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783