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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22 recites that the second side of the fourth contact is adjacent to the fourth edge of the card and the fourth side of the eight metal contact is adjacent to the third edge of the card, which is not supported by the specification (does not show possession) as FIG. 25 for example, which instead shows the second side of the fourth contact adjacent to the third edge and the fourth side of the eight metal contact adjacent to the fourth edge.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, 15-16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9647709) in view of Loyta et al. (US 20170077589).
Re claim 1, Li teaches:
A memory card (107) comprising:
a first edge (top of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a second edge parallel to the first edge and separated from the first edge by a first distance (bottom of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a third edge (left side of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a first row of metal contacts distributed along the third edge and comprising:
a first metal contact configured to transmit a power supply signal;
a second metal contact configured to transmit a first data signal;
a third metal contact configured to transmit a clock signal;
a fourth metal contact configured to transmit a third data signal (left side of contacts in 107);
a fourth edge parallel to the third edge and separated from the third edge by a second
distance, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (right of card 107);
a second row of metal contacts distributed along the fourth edge and comprising:
a fifth metal contact configured to be coupled to ground;
a sixth metal contact configured to transmit a second data signal;
a seventh metal contact configured to transmit a control signal; and
an eighth metal contact configured to transmit a fourth data signal; (the 4 right hand contacts of card 107) and
a corner is located between the second edge and the fourth edge and comprising a chamfer (bottom corner of card 107),
wherein the sixth metal contact is adjacent to the chamfer (pads adjacent chamfer),
wherein the third metal contact and the sixth metal contact are adjacent to the second
edge (3rd and 6th can be interpreted as the bottom contact of each row), and
wherein the fourth metal contact and the eighth metal contact are adjacent to the first edge (the 4th and 8th are interpreted as the top contact of each row). As the card has pads, each pad is configured to “transmit” a signal, and though silent, it would have been obvious that each pad is “configured” to transmit the specific recited signals, based on how the programming occurs, as the prior art structure is configured to support such operations via the 8 contacts.
Re the newly added limitation that the first length of the first edge is longer than a second length of the second edge, a third length of the third edge, and a fourth length of the fourth edge, the Examiner notes that Li teaches a chamfered corner, which results in one length of one edge being longer than the other lengths of the other edges. It would have been obvious to have such a configuration for shape constraints for system applications.
Li is silent to the newly added limtaitons that the fourth and eight metal contact is L-shaped.
Loyta et al. teaches RFID enabled SIM cards with L shaped pads such as TCM 310 in FIG. 3A with L shaped pads on the top and bottom.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a particular pad pattern layout (L shapes), such as for a specific connector, application, system constraint, etc., as the shape of a pad does not appear to provide unexpected results (for conducting).
Re claims 2-3, 15, and 19, FIG. 1 is a nano-sim.
Re claims 4 and 16, the seventh and fifth contacts can be interpreted as the middle 2 contacts on the right column and the first and second contacts are the middle contacts of the left column.
Re claim 9, as the contacts are separate, they are interpreted as isolated in so much as pads of a chip are isolated from each other.
Re claims 11-12 and 20, the limitations of the card (nano sim) have been discussed above re claim 1. Though silent to a connector, the Examiner note that a connector such as for card reading is an obvious expedient in order to read an inserted card.
Re claim 21, in FIG. 3A Loyta et al. teaches L shaped pads of the TCM, such as those on the top left and right of TCM 310 which are generally L-shaped. The long side of each L-shaped contact is parallel to the top surface of the TCM 310 which is intpereted as being adjacent to the first edge. Even further, the Examiner notes that as L-shaped contacts are shown, the placement/ position of L-shaped contacts is an obvious matter of design variation based on system constraints, to produce expected results of conduction/ transmission of a signal through the contact.
Re claim 22, though sient to the second side of the fourth contact and fourth side of the eight contact being adjacent to the fourth and third memory card edge, the Examiner notes that as the general conditions of the claim are taught, a specific shape/ layout of contacts is within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of conducting a signal and are obviated by system/ design constraints.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Loyta et al., as discussed above, in view of Deprun et al. (US 20070210174).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Li/ Loyta et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a top pin (fourth contact) and first edge being less than the distance between the bottom pin of the same row (third contact) and the second edge, resulting in the top contacts being closer to the edge than the bottom, and the same situation with the second row with the recited sixth and fifth claimed distances.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 1) wherein the pins are skewed more toward the top edge.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings for a preferred layout for expected system constraints, orientation on a card/ reader, etc., wherein moving off center does not provide unexpected results.
Re claims 8 and 18, the teachings of Li/ Loyta et al. have been discussed above but are silent to other protocols.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0013]+ including SIM, USB, MMC, etc.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for different communication protocols.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Loyta et al., as discussed above, in view of Woodford et al. (US 20130319733).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Li/ Loyta et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the SIM being mounted in a card.
Woodford et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 4+ where Sim cards are mounted in contact smart cards).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a storage and a controller in order to function as a contact smart card.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use in a smart card.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, 15-16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9647709) in view of Nielsen (US 201900659220.
Re claim 1, Li teaches:
A memory card (107) comprising:
a first edge (top of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a second edge parallel to the first edge and separated from the first edge by a first distance (bottom of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a third edge (left side of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a first row of metal contacts distributed along the third edge and comprising:
a first metal contact configured to transmit a power supply signal;
a second metal contact configured to transmit a first data signal;
a third metal contact configured to transmit a clock signal;
a fourth metal contact configured to transmit a third data signal (left side of contacts in 107);
a fourth edge parallel to the third edge and separated from the third edge by a second
distance, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (right of card 107);
a second row of metal contacts distributed along the fourth edge and comprising:
a fifth metal contact configured to be coupled to ground;
a sixth metal contact configured to transmit a second data signal;
a seventh metal contact configured to transmit a control signal; and
an eighth metal contact configured to transmit a fourth data signal; (the 4 right hand contacts of card 107) and
a corner is located between the second edge and the fourth edge and comprising a chamfer (bottom corner of card 107),
wherein the sixth metal contact is adjacent to the chamfer (pads adjacent chamfer),
wherein the third metal contact and the sixth metal contact are adjacent to the second
edge (3rd and 6th can be interpreted as the bottom contact of each row), and
wherein the fourth metal contact and the eighth metal contact are adjacent to the first edge (the 4th and 8th are interpreted as the top contact of each row). As the card has pads, each pad is configured to “transmit” a signal, and though silent, it would have been obvious that each pad is “configured” to transmit the specific recited signals, based on how the programming occurs, as the prior art structure is configured to support such operations via the 8 contacts.
Re the newly added limitation that the first length of the first edge is longer than a second length of the second edge, a third length of the third edge, and a fourth length of the fourth edge, the Examiner notes that Li teaches a chamfered corner, which results in one length of one edge being longer than the other lengths of the other edges. It would have been obvious to have such a configuration for shape constraints for system applications.
Li is silent to the newly added limtaitons that the fourth and eight metal contact is L-shaped.
Nielsen teaches L-shaped contact pads on top and bottom (FIG. 2) .
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a particular pad pattern layout, such as for a specific connector, application, system constraint, etc., as the shape of a pad does not appear to provide unexpected results (for conducting).
Re claims 2-3, 15, and 19, FIG. 1 is a nano-sim.
Re claims 4 and 16, the seventh and fifth contacts can be interpreted as the middle 2 contacts on the right column and the first and second contacts are the middle contacts of the left column.
Re claim 9, as the contacts are separate, they are interpreted as isolated in so much as pads of a chip are isolated from each other.
Re claims 11-12 and 20, the limitations of the card (nano sim) have been discussed above re claim 1. Though silent to a connector, the Examiner note that a connector such as for card reading is an obvious expedient in order to read an inserted card.
Re claim 21, Nielsen teaches the fourth contact first side is longer than a second side and the eight metal contact third side is longer than the fourth side as first and third sides are intpereted as the top-edge longest length sides of the top two contacts in FIG. 2
Re claim 22, Nielsen eta FIG. 2 teaches the top left side of the top left contact is adjacent the third edge and the top right side of the top right contact is adjacent the fourth edge. While silent to the top left side of the top left contact (second side of the fourth metal contact) and top right side of the top right contact (fourth side of the eight metal contact) being adjacent to the fourth and third edge, respectfully, the Examiner notes that as the general conditions of the claim are taught, a specific shape/ layout of contacts is within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of conducting a signal and are obviated by system/ design constraints.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Nielsen, as discussed above, in view of Deprun et al. (US 20070210174).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Li/ Nielsen have been discussed above but are silent to a top pin (fourth contact) and first edge being less than the distance between the bottom pin of the same row (third contact) and the second edge, resulting in the top contacts being closer to the edge than the bottom, and the same situation with the second row with the recited sixth and fifth claimed distances.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 1) wherein the pins are skewed more toward the top edge.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings for a preferred layout for expected system constraints, orientation on a card/ reader, etc., wherein moving off center does not provide unexpected results.
Re claims 8 and 18, the teachings of Li have been discussed above but are silent to other protocols.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0013]+ including SIM, USB, MMC, etc.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for different communication protocols.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Nielsen, as discussed above, in view of Woodford et al. (US 20130319733).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Li/ Nielsen have been discussed above but are silent to the SIM being mounted in a card.
Woodford et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 4+ where Sim cards are mounted in contact smart cards).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a storage and a controller in order to function as a contact smart card.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use in a smart card.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, 15-16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9647709) in view of Lepp et al. (US 20130270349).
Re claim 1, Li teaches:
A memory card (107) comprising:
a first edge (top of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a second edge parallel to the first edge and separated from the first edge by a first distance (bottom of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a third edge (left side of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a first row of metal contacts distributed along the third edge and comprising:
a first metal contact configured to transmit a power supply signal;
a second metal contact configured to transmit a first data signal;
a third metal contact configured to transmit a clock signal;
a fourth metal contact configured to transmit a third data signal (left side of contacts in 107);
a fourth edge parallel to the third edge and separated from the third edge by a second
distance, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (right of card 107);
a second row of metal contacts distributed along the fourth edge and comprising:
a fifth metal contact configured to be coupled to ground;
a sixth metal contact configured to transmit a second data signal;
a seventh metal contact configured to transmit a control signal; and
an eighth metal contact configured to transmit a fourth data signal; (the 4 right hand contacts of card 107) and
a corner is located between the second edge and the fourth edge and comprising a chamfer (bottom corner of card 107),
wherein the sixth metal contact is adjacent to the chamfer (pads adjacent chamfer),
wherein the third metal contact and the sixth metal contact are adjacent to the second
edge (3rd and 6th can be interpreted as the bottom contact of each row), and
wherein the fourth metal contact and the eighth metal contact are adjacent to the first edge (the 4th and 8th are interpreted as the top contact of each row). As the card has pads, each pad is configured to “transmit” a signal, and though silent, it would have been obvious that each pad is “configured” to transmit the specific recited signals, based on how the programming occurs, as the prior art structure is configured to support such operations via the 8 contacts.
Re the newly added limitation that the first length of the first edge is longer than a second length of the second edge, a third length of the third edge, and a fourth length of the fourth edge, the Examiner notes that Li teaches a chamfered corner, which results in one length of one edge being longer than the other lengths of the other edges. It would have been obvious to have such a configuration for shape constraints for system applications.
Li is silent to the newly added limtaitons that the fourth and eight metal contact is L-shaped.
Lepp et al. teaches L shaped contact pads on top and bottom (FIG. 20). Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a particular pad pattern layout, such as for a specific connector, application, system constraint, etc., as the shape of a pad does not appear to provide unexpected results (for conducting).
Re claims 2-3, 15, and 19, FIG. 1 is a nano-sim.
Re claims 4 and 16, the seventh and fifth contacts can be interpreted as the middle 2 contacts on the right column and the first and second contacts are the middle contacts of the left column.
Re claim 9, as the contacts are separate, they are interpreted as isolated in so much as pads of a chip are isolated from each other.
Re claims 11-12 and 20, the limitations of the card (nano sim) have been discussed above re claim 1. Though silent to a connector, the Examiner note that a connector such as for card reading is an obvious expedient in order to read an inserted card.
Re claim 21, Lepp et al. teaches the fourth contact first side is longer than a second side (FIG. 20 wherein the top of C1 is longer than a side of C1 and the top of C1 is adjacent to the first edge.) While FIG. 20 does not explicitly teach an L shaped top right contact as it appears more “T” shaped, the Examiner notes that mere changes to shape that produce expected results are obviated by system/ design constraints. Nonetheless, FIG. 35+ teaches the top right contact C5 that teaches such a limitation with the longer length of C5 adjacent the first edge 9top). Again, a specific arrangement or layout of known terminal shapes only involves routine skill in the art to provide expected connectivity results based on system/ design constraints.
Re claim 22, Lepp et al. at FIG. 20 teaches the top left side of the top left contact is adjacent the third edge and the top right side of the top right contact is adjacent the fourth edge (FIG. 35+). While silent to the top left side of the top left contact (second side of the fourth metal contact) and top right side of the top right contact (fourth side of the eight metal contact) being adjacent to the fourth and third edge, respectfully, the Examiner notes that as the general conditions of the claim are taught, a specific shape/ layout of contacts is within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of conducting a signal and are obviated by system/ design constraints, especially as L-shaped contacts are taught for both the top left and right contacts in FIG. 20 and 35+.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Lepp et al., as discussed above, in view of Deprun et al. (US 20070210174).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Li/ Lepp et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a top pin (fourth contact) and first edge being less than the distance between the bottom pin of the same row (third contact) and the second edge, resulting in the top contacts being closer to the edge than the bottom, and the same situation with the second row with the recited sixth and fifth claimed distances.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 1) wherein the pins are skewed more toward the top edge.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings for a preferred layout for expected system constraints, orientation on a card/ reader, etc., wherein moving off center does not provide unexpected results.
Re claims 8 and 18, the teachings of Li/ Lepp et al. have been discussed above but are silent to other protocols.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0013]+ including SIM, USB, MMC, etc.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for different communication protocols.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Lepp et al., as discussed above, in view of Woodford et al. (US 20130319733).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Li/ Lepp et al. been discussed above but are silent to the SIM being mounted in a card.
Woodford et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 4+ where Sim cards are mounted in contact smart cards).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a storage and a controller in order to function as a contact smart card.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use in a smart card.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, 15-16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9647709) in view of Finn et al. (US 20150129665).
Re claim 1, Li teaches:
A memory card (107) comprising:
a first edge (top of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a second edge parallel to the first edge and separated from the first edge by a first distance (bottom of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a third edge (left side of card 107 in FIG. 1);
a first row of metal contacts distributed along the third edge and comprising:
a first metal contact configured to transmit a power supply signal;
a second metal contact configured to transmit a first data signal;
a third metal contact configured to transmit a clock signal;
a fourth metal contact configured to transmit a third data signal (left side of contacts in 107);
a fourth edge parallel to the third edge and separated from the third edge by a second
distance, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (right of card 107);
a second row of metal contacts distributed along the fourth edge and comprising:
a fifth metal contact configured to be coupled to ground;
a sixth metal contact configured to transmit a second data signal;
a seventh metal contact configured to transmit a control signal; and
an eighth metal contact configured to transmit a fourth data signal; (the 4 right hand contacts of card 107) and
a corner is located between the second edge and the fourth edge and comprising a chamfer (bottom corner of card 107),
wherein the sixth metal contact is adjacent to the chamfer (pads adjacent chamfer),
wherein the third metal contact and the sixth metal contact are adjacent to the second
edge (3rd and 6th can be interpreted as the bottom contact of each row), and
wherein the fourth metal contact and the eighth metal contact are adjacent to the first edge (the 4th and 8th are interpreted as the top contact of each row). As the card has pads, each pad is configured to “transmit” a signal, and though silent, it would have been obvious that each pad is “configured” to transmit the specific recited signals, based on how the programming occurs, as the prior art structure is configured to support such operations via the 8 contacts.
Re the newly added limitation that the first length of the first edge is longer than a second length of the second edge, a third length of the third edge, and a fourth length of the fourth edge, the Examiner notes that Li teaches a chamfered corner, which results in one length of one edge being longer than the other lengths of the other edges. It would have been obvious to have such a configuration for shape constraints for system applications.
Li is silent to the newly added limtaitons that the fourth and eight metal contact is L-shaped.
Finn et al. teaches L shaped pads such as in FIG. 2B. The pads are in various locations on the module.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a particular pad pattern layout (L shapes), such as for a specific connector, application, system constraint, etc., as the shape of a pad does not appear to provide unexpected results (for conducting). Further, locating different contact pads in different locations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the general conditions of contact pads being L-shaped have been taught and thus moving their locations does not provide unexpected results.
Re claims 2-3, 15, and 19, FIG. 1 is a nano-sim.
Re claims 4 and 16, the seventh and fifth contacts can be interpreted as the middle 2 contacts on the right column and the first and second contacts are the middle contacts of the left column.
Re claim 9, as the contacts are separate, they are interpreted as isolated in so much as pads of a chip are isolated from each other.
Re claims 11-12 and 20, the limitations of the card (nano sim) have been discussed above re claim 1. Though silent to a connector, the Examiner note that a connector such as for card reading is an obvious expedient in order to read an inserted card.
Re claim 21, in FIG. 2B+ Finn et al. teaches L shaped pads of the TCM, such as those on c4 and c8 and cbr-1 and cbr-2. The long side of each L-shaped contact is parallel to the top surface of the TCM 310 which is intpereted as being adjacent to the first edge. Even further, the Examiner notes that as L-shaped contacts are shown, the placement/ position of L-shaped contacts is an obvious matter of design variation based on system constraints, to produce expected results of conduction/ transmission of a signal through the contact.
Re claim 22, though sient to the second side of the fourth contact and fourth side of the eight contact being adjacent to the fourth and third memory card edge, the Examiner notes that as the general conditions of the claim are taught, a specific shape/ layout of contacts is within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of conducting a signal and are obviated by system/ design constraints.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Finn et al., as discussed above, in view of Deprun et al. (US 20070210174).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Li/ Finn et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a top pin (fourth contact) and first edge being less than the distance between the bottom pin of the same row (third contact) and the second edge, resulting in the top contacts being closer to the edge than the bottom, and the same situation with the second row with the recited sixth and fifth claimed distances.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 1) wherein the pins are skewed more toward the top edge.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings for a preferred layout for expected system constraints, orientation on a card/ reader, etc., wherein moving off center does not provide unexpected results.
Re claims 8 and 18, the teachings of Li/ Finn et al. have been discussed above but are silent to other protocols.
Deprun et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0013]+ including SIM, USB, MMC, etc.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for different communication protocols.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/ Finn et al., as discussed above, in view of Woodford et al. (US 20130319733).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Li/ Finn et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the SIM being mounted in a card.
Woodford et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 4+ where Sim cards are mounted in contact smart cards).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a storage and a controller in order to function as a contact smart card.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use in a smart card.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, the prior art teaches various L-shaped contacts. The Examiner notes that the placement/ layout of prior art taught L-shaped contacts involves only routine skill in the art based on system/ design constraints, as their orientation and placement does not produce unexpected results. The prior art teachings show L-shaped contacts on the top edge, and thus specific changes to how the contacts are laid out along that same top edge are interpreted as within the ordinary skill in the art.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876