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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed September 3, 2025 have been entered and considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Fig. 1-13, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on May 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 cancelled from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 12, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 8 and 11, filed on May 12, 2025, have been entered and considered.
Applicant’s addition of claims 16-24, filed on May 12, 2025, have been entered and considered. No new matter is added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-5, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convert et al. (US 10325850 B1) in view of Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A).
Regarding claim 1, Convert et al. teaches:
A device [90, Col. 2, Lines 61-67 to Col. 3, Lines 1-5, Fig. 1], comprising:
a multilayer organic substrate [124, Col. 4, Lines 51-57, Fig. 2-3];
an integrated circuit chip [102, Col. 3, Lines 42-47, Fig. 2, 9], on the multilayer organic substrate [124]; and
a package [100, Col. 3, Lines 25-41, Fig. 2] including a first cavity [121, Col. 4, Lines 13-14, Fig. 2], containing the multilayer organic substrate [124] and the integrated circuit chip [102], the first cavity [121] configured to communicate over a channel [area between 121 and 123, Fig. 2] with a second cavity [123, Col. 4, Lines 35-36, Fig. 2], the second cavity [123] forming a waveguide [122, Col. 4, Lines 15-23, Fig. 2, 9] for electromagnetic waves, the package [100] including:
an antenna [114, Col. 4, Lines 3-12, Fig. 2, 4, 8-9] in the substrate [124] and coupled to the integrated circuit chip [102].
an antenna [114, Fig. 2, 4, 8-9] extending in the first cavity [121, Fig. 2] and partially into the second cavity [123, Fig. 2].
Regarding the integrated circuit chip “flip-chip assembled” on the multilayer organic substrate. MPEP 2113 (I) Product-by-Process Claims states: I. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Biogen is certainly correct that the scope of composition and method of treatment claims is generally subject to distinctly different analyses. But where, as here, the novelty of the method of administration rests wholly on the novelty of the composition administered, which in turn rests on the novelty of the source limitation, the Amgen analysis will necessarily result in the same conclusion on anticipation for both forms of claims."); United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as "anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made."); and Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 ("a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim").
Convert et al. does not teach:
an antenna in the substrate and coupled to the integrated circuit chip by an electrical connector directly below the integrated circuit chip.
Moskowitz et al. teaches:
an antenna [230, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] in the substrate [220, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Lines 1-6, Fig. 2] and coupled to the integrated circuit chip [210, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] by an electrical connector [222, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] directly below the integrated circuit chip [210, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Moskowitz et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. to include an antenna in the substrate and coupled to the integrated circuit chip by an electrical connector directly below the integrated circuit chip. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Moskowitz et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving connections and performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 2, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 1.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the first cavity [121, Fig. 2] includes a first recess [corresponding with first cavity 121, Fig. 2], the integrated circuit chip [102] being in the first recess.
Regarding claim 3, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 2.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the first cavity [121, Fig. 2] includes a second recess [See Fig. 2] that is between the second cavity [123, Fig. 2] and the first recess.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[MPEP 2125 Drawings as Prior Art]
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as "enabled disclosures."
Regarding claim 4, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 1.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate [124, Fig. 2] includes a main portion [Fig. 4] in the first cavity [121] and a protrusion [the protruded antenna 114, Fig. 2] extending from the main portion [Fig. 4] into the channel and penetrating into the second cavity [123].
Regarding claim 5, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 1.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein an electrically-insulating support [106, Col. 3, Lines 48-59, Fig. 2] in the substrate [124] includes first [top] and second [bottom] opposite surfaces, electrically-conductive tracks [104, Col. 3, Lines 48-54, Fig. 2-4] extending on the first surface [top], and an electrically-insulating layer [140, Col. 4, Lines 32-38, Fig. 2] covering the electrically-conductive tracks [104].
Regarding claim 16, Convert et al. teaches:
A device [90], comprising:
a package [100] including:
a first cavity [121];
a second cavity [123] corresponding to a first waveguide [122] for electromagnetic waves;
a multilayer organic substrate [124] in the first cavity [121];
an integrated circuit [102] on the organic substrate [124];
a channel [area between 121 and 123, See Fig. 2] coupled between the first cavity [121] and the second cavity [123]; and
an antenna [114] coupled to the integrated circuit chip [102], the antenna [114] extending in the first cavity [121] and partially into the second cavity [123].
Convert et al. does not teach:
an antenna coupled to the integrated circuit chip by a first electrical connector directly below the integrated circuit chip.
Moskowitz et al. teaches:
an antenna [230, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] coupled to the integrated circuit chip [210, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] by a first electrical connector [222, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] directly below the integrated circuit chip [210, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Moskowitz et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. to include an antenna coupled to the integrated circuit chip by a first electrical connector directly below the integrated circuit chip. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving connections and performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 17, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 16.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the package [100] includes a first portion [upper] and a second portion [lower] delimiting the first cavity [121].
Regarding claim 19, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 16.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the first cavity [121] includes a first recess [corresponding with first cavity 121, See Fig. 2], the integrated circuit chip [102] being in the first recess [See Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 20, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 19.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the first cavity [121] includes a second recess [See Fig. 2] that is between the second cavity [123] and the first recess [See Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 21, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 16.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate [124] includes a main portion [Fig. 4] in the first cavity [121] and a protrusion [the protruded antenna 114, Fig. 2] extending from the main portion [Fig. 4] into the channel and penetrating into the second cavity [123].
Regarding claim 22, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 16.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein an electrically-insulating support [106] in the substrate [124] includes first [top] and second [bottom] opposite surfaces, electrically-conductive tracks [104] extending on the first surface [top], and an electrically-insulating layer [140] covering the electrically- conductive tracks [104].
Claims 6-7 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convert et al. (US 10325850 B1) in view of Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A) and Weidinger et al. (US 10993313 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 5.
Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. do not teach:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate further includes a coating including a graphene layer covering the electrically-insulating layer.
Weidinger et al. teaches:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate [100, Col. 14, Lines 23-30, Fig. 6] further includes a coating including a graphene layer [106, Col. 9, Lines 50-56; Col. 19, Lines 58-64, Fig. 6] covering the electrically-insulating layer [104, Col. 14, Lines 23-30, Fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Weidinger et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. to include wherein the multilayer organic substrate further includes a coating including a graphene layer covering the electrically-insulating layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving electrical and heat conducting capabilities, and increasing density and durability of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. teach the device of claim 6.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate [124] includes the antenna [114, Fig. 2, 4] on a protrusion [the protruded antenna 114, Fig. 2] in the second cavity [123], and wherein the multilayer organic substrate [124] includes an electrically-conductive line [120a, Col. 4, Lines 9-12, Fig. 2, 9] coupling the antenna [114] to the integrated circuit chip [102].
Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. do not teach:
where the coating does not cover the electrically-conductive line in the first cavity.
Weidinger et al. teaches:
where the coating [106, Fig. 21-26] does not cover the electrically-conductive line [108/134, Col. 12, Lines 47-53, Fig. 21-26] in the first cavity [128, Fig. 21-26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Weidinger et al. into the teachings of Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. to include where the coating does not cover the electrically-conductive line in the first cavity. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. in the above manner for the purpose of forming better connections and improving transfer of electricity.
Regarding claim 23, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 22.
Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. do not teach:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate further includes a coating including a graphene layer covering the electrically-insulating layer.
Weidinger et al. teaches:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate [100, Col. 14, Lines 23-30, Fig. 6] further includes a coating including a graphene layer [106, Col. 9, Lines 50-56; Col. 19, Lines 58-64, Fig. 6] covering the electrically-insulating layer [104, Col. 14, Lines 23-30, Fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Weidinger et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. to include wherein the multilayer organic substrate further includes a coating including a graphene layer covering the electrically-insulating layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving electrical and heat conducting capabilities, and increasing density and durability of the device.
Regarding claim 24, Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. teach the device of claim 23.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the multilayer organic substrate [124] includes the antenna [114] on a protrusion [the protruded antenna 114, Fig. 2] in the second cavity [123], and wherein the multilayer organic substrate [124] includes an electrically-conductive line [120a] coupling the antenna [114] to the integrated circuit chip [102].
Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. do not teach:
where the coating does not cover the electrically-conductive line in the first cavity.
Weidinger et al. teaches:
where the coating [106, Fig. 21-26] does not cover the electrically-conductive line [108/134, Col. 12, Lines 47-53, Fig. 21-26] in the first cavity [128, Fig. 21-26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Weidinger et al. into the teachings of Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. to include where the coating does not cover the electrically-conductive line in the first cavity. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al., Moskowitz et al. and Weidinger et al. in the above manner for the purpose of forming better connections and improving transfer of electricity.
Claims 8-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convert et al. (US 10325850 B1) in view of Danny et al. (US 8912634 B2) and Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A).
Regarding claim 8, Convert et al. teaches:
A device [90], comprising:
a package [100, Fig. 2] having a first surface [bottom] opposite to a second surface [top];
a first cavity [121] in the package [100, Fig. 2];
a second cavity [123, Fig. 2] in the package [100, Fig. 2],
an integrated circuit chip [102, Fig. 2] on the first insulating layer [106];
a waveguide [122, Col. 4, Lines 25-31, Fig. 2] coupled to the integrated circuit [102, Fig. 2].
the antenna [114] extending in the first cavity [121, Fig. 2] and partially into the second cavity [123, Fig. 2].
Convert et al. does not teach:
a first plurality of conductive layers in the first cavity closer to the first surface than the second surface;
a first insulating layer in the first cavity, the first insulating layer being spaced from the first surface by the first plurality of conductive layers;
a second plurality of conductive layers in the first cavity closer to the second surface than the first surface;
a waveguide being at least partially in the second cavity and extending to a first side of the package; and
a plurality of electric connectors extending from a second side of the package that is different from the first side of the package.
Danny et al. teaches:
a first plurality of conductive layers [54, Col. 6, Lines 13-16, Fig. 2] in the first cavity [46, Col. 5, Lines 29-34, Fig. 2] closer to the first surface [top] than the second surface [bottom];
a first insulating layer [56, Col. 6, Lines 13-16, Fig. 2] in the first cavity [46], the first insulating layer [56] being spaced from the first surface [top] by the first plurality of conductive layers [54];
a second plurality of conductive layers [58, Col. 6, Lines 13-16, Fig. 2] in the first cavity [46] closer to the second surface [bottom] than the first surface [top];
a waveguide being at least partially in the second cavity [48, Col. 5, Lines 29-34, Fig. 2] and extending to a first side [top] of the package [Fig. 2]; and
a plurality of electric connectors [77, Col. 8, Lines 34-36, Fig. 2] extending from a second side [left, Fig. 2] of the package [Fig. 2] that is different from the first side [top] of the package [Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Danny et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. to include a first plurality of conductive layers in the first cavity closer to the first surface than the second surface; a first insulating layer in the first cavity, the first insulating layer being spaced from the first surface by the first plurality of conductive layers; a second plurality of conductive layers in the first cavity closer to the second surface than the first surface; a waveguide being at least partially in the second cavity and extending to a first side of the package; and a plurality of electric connectors extending from a second side of the package that is different from the first side of the package. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving yield and signal integrity, increasing density and improving connections between features, and allowing for external connections. See also, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding “first” and “second” limitation of features, MPEP 2163.02 states:
The subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement. If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph - description requirement, or denial of the benefit of the filing date of a previously filed application, as appropriate.
Convert et al. and Danny et al. do not teach:
an antenna in the substrate and coupled to the integrated circuit chip by an electrical connector directly below the integrated circuit chip.
Moskowitz et al. teaches:
an antenna [230, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] in the substrate [220, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Lines 1-6, Fig. 2] and coupled to the integrated circuit chip [210, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] by an electrical connector [222, Col. 3, Lines 65-67 to Col. 4, Line 1, Fig. 2] directly below the integrated circuit chip [210, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Moskowitz et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. and Danny et al. to include an antenna in the substrate and coupled to the integrated circuit chip by an electrical connector directly below the integrated circuit chip. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al. and Danny et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving connections and performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 9, Convert et al., Danny et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 8.
Convert et al. further teaches:
wherein the first plurality of conductive layers [104], the first insulating layer [106], and the second plurality of conductive layers [108] are a substrate [124] in the package [100].
Regarding claim 10, Convert et al., Danny et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 9.
Convert et al., Danny et al. and Moskowitz et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. do not teach:
wherein the plurality of electric connectors extends from the package into an external environment.
Danny et al. teaches:
wherein the plurality of electric connectors [77, Fig. 2 analogous with 152, Fig. 5] extends from the package [Fig. 5] into an external environment [156, Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Danny et al. into the teachings of Convert et al., Danny et al. and Moskowitz et al. to include wherein the plurality of electric connectors extends from the package into an external environment. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al., Danny et al. and Moskowitz et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing reliable electrical connections between features, enhancing manufacturing process accuracy and efficiency, improve performance, and allowing for external connections.
Regarding claim 11, Convert et al., Danny et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 9.
Convert et al further teaches:
wherein the second cavity [123] extends from the substrate [124] to an edge the first side [top] of the package [100, Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 18, Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. teach the device of claim 17.
Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. do not teach:
wherein the package includes a second electrical connector between the first portion and the second portion.
Danny et al. teaches:
wherein the package [Fig. 2] includes a second electrical connector [77, Fig. 2] between the first portion [upper] and the second portion [lower].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Danny et al. into the teachings of Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. to include wherein the package includes an electrical connector between the first portion and the second portion. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Convert et al. and Moskowitz et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing reliable electrical connections between features, enhancing manufacturing process accuracy and efficiency, improve performance, and allowing for external connections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 16, 18 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 16, 18 and 24 in remarks filed September 3, 2025. Applicant argues on pages 1-2, in remarks filed September 3, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amendments to independent claim 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant, however after a new line of search and consideration the amendments to independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A). Claims 2-7 which are directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on pages 2-3, in remarks filed September 3, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amendments to independent claim 8. Examiner agrees with Applicant, however after a new line of search and consideration the amendments to independent claim 8 can be overcome by newly cited source Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A). Claims 9-11 which are directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 8 are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on page 3, in remarks filed September 3, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amendments to independent claim 16. Examiner agrees with Applicant, however after a new line of search and consideration the amendments to independent claim 16 can be overcome by newly cited source Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A). Claims 17-24 which are directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 16 are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons mentioned above.
In summary, Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, 16 and 24 can be overcome by newly cited source Moskowitz et al. (US 5528222 A). All claims directly or indirectly dependent on claims 1, 8, 16 and 24 are therefore rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571)270-1435. 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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 11/24/2025
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights