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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I. in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity requirement was not made in corresponding application and amendments render holding moot. This is not found persuasive because holdings and actions of examiner in corresponding application are not binding and holdings have not been sufficiently refuted as applied.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12 & 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained, from the standpoint of patentability, what size, shape and/or degree of depression is intended to be included or excluded by the recitation of the term “dimple” without any expression as to dimensions being set forth by the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, regarding claims1-11, claim 1 recites the limitation "the environment" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertain if reference back to “the environment” without previous definition of or reference to an environment to be referred back to is intended to be setting forth or requiring any positive process action of providing water and/or moisture from an external action and/or source.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, regarding claims 2, 3 and 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2, 3, and 9 recite the broad recitations humidity, surface cover and polymers, respectively, and the claim also recite values and/or selections which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The expression "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the expression are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 3 recites the limitation "the humid chamber atmosphere" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what chamber and, by extension, atmosphere is being referred back to by claim 3 when the claim has not defined either earlier in its own recitations or in the claim from which it depends a component or element identified or defined to be “a humid chamber atmosphere”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 5 recites the limitation "well width" and “well depth” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what aspect of the invention is being set forth and/or further defined by the claim’s reference back to “well(s)” without the wells being referred back to by the claim being earlier defined by the claim itself or the claim from which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation "the humid environment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what claim element and/or environment is being referred back to by claim 7 when the claim has not defined either earlier in its own recitations or in the claim from which it depends a component or element identified or defined to be “a humid environment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 11 recites the limitation "the in-between dimple surface" in lines 3 & 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what claim element and/or feature is being referred back to by claim 11 when the claim has not defined either earlier in its own recitations or in the claim from which it depends a component or element identified or defined to be “an in-between dimple surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
To the degree that the limits of applicants’ claims can be ascertained {see rejection(s) above under 35USC112}, it is seen and/or agreed that the closest prior art, including Feng et al.{Optics and Laser Tech Doc} and Khdary et al.(2017/0096545) taken either alone or in combination with other prior art, does not teach or fairly suggest methods as claimed for forming “dimples” in a cured elastomer through the operations of applying and partially curing a liquid elastomer and resolving formation of “dimples” to the then cured elastomer through condensing water droplets onto the partially cured polymer followed by finishing cure along with removal of the water droplets.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2021/179052 is cited for its disclosure of relevant preparations involving condensation of water on surfaces of polymer materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights