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 .
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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, 2, 5, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1).
As per claim 1, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) discloses an acoustic wave sensor device (e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0003]), comprising: a quartz material layer comprising a planar surface (e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0022]; claim 26); a first interdigitated transducer (e.g., 102, 112; see, inter alia, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0029]) formed over the planar surface of the quartz material layer; a first reflection structure (e.g., 106, 116) formed over the planar surface of the quartz material layer; a second reflection structure (e.g., 104, 114) formed over the planar surface of the quartz material layer; a first resonance cavity formed between the first interdigitated transducer (102, 112) and the first reflection structure (106, 116); and a second resonance cavity formed between the first interdigitated transducer (102, 112) and the second reflection structure (104, 114) (see Fig. 1, paragraph [0026]), and wherein an upper surface of the second resonance cavity (formed between the first interdigitated transducer (102, 112) and the second reflection structure (104, 114)) comprises a physical and/or chemical modification (e.g., inclusion of passive absorbing layer (e.g., 108, 118), which makes the material layer directly underneath less chemically reactive) as compared to an upper surface of the first resonance cavity (e.g., see Figs 1, 2, where this is an absence of such a layer (108, 118) on the upper surface of the first resonance cavity) and the physical and/or chemical modification comprises a metallization layer or passivation layer (e.g., inclusion of passive absorbing layer (e.g., 108, 118), which makes the material layer directly underneath less chemically reactive) formed on the upper surface of the second resonance cavity (formed between the first interdigitated transducer (102, 112) and the second reflection structure (104, 114)) resulting in that propagation characteristics of acoustic waves generated by the first interdigitated transducer (e.g., 102, 112) differ in the second resonance cavity from propagation characteristics of acoustic waves in the first resonance cavity. See, e.g. where the absorbing layer (e.g., 108, 118) acts to absorb chemicals of interest, which changes the "mass loading " along the acoustic path that "may result in a change in the resonant frequency." See abstract. That is, the absorbing layer does indeed affect the propagation characteristics of acoustic waves (via a delay time between the IDTs (102, 112) and the reflectors (104, 114) when compared with the first resonance cavity not having the absorbing layer) due to the mass loading of the chemicals passively absorbed by the absorbing layer (108, 118 ). See paragraph [0038, "the delay time is at least partially related to the amount of chemical and/or biochemical absorbed by the absorbing layer or substance." See further paragraph [0049], "As the absorbing layer or substance 204 absorbs more chemical and/or biochemical of interest, the mass loading along the acoustic path will increase, which will tend to increase the first delay 708." Note the claims do not in any way specify the material composition of the metallization or passivation layer. As such, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) is seen to anticipate the newly added limitations (including its function) provided for in the amendment filed on April 8, 2026.
As per claim 2, wherein the quartz material layer is a quartz bulk quartz substrate. See paragraph [0022] and claim 26 of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1).
As per claims 8 (and claim 18, rejected, infra), wherein extensions lengths of the first resonance cavity (622, 626) and the second resonance cavity (624, 628) differ from each other - see Fig. 1, wherein the cavity formed including substance (108, 118) differ in length along the wave propagation direction (left-to-right, or right-to-left, as depicted in Fig. 1).
As per claim 13, wherein the acoustic wave sensor device is a passive surface acoustic wave sensor device configured for sensing an ambient parameter selected from one of a temperature, chemical species, strain, pressure or torque of a rotating axis. See, inter alia, paragraphs [0007, 0008, 0027, 0028].
As per claim 1, however, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the planar surface of the quartz material layer is defined by a crystal cut of a quartz material of the quartz material layer with angle φ in a range of -14° to -24°, angle Ɵ in a range of -25° to -45° and angle ψ in a range of +8° to +28°.
As per claims 5 (and claim 15, rejected, infra), Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein at least one of the first and second reflection structures comprises a groove or an edge reflection structure or a short reflector comprising not more than three electrodes.
Such quartz substrates, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1), wherein as per claim 1, a planar surface of the quartz material layer ("quartz crystal substrate" - see abstract) is defined by a crystal cut of a quartz material of the quartz material layer with angle φ in a range of -14° to -24°, angle Ɵ in a range of -25° to -45° and angle ψ in a range of +8° to +28°. See Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs [0002, 0012, 0018-0020, 0023]).
Additionally, as per claims 5 and 15, Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) further discloses wherein at least one of first and second reflection structures (e.g., 6, 7) comprises a groove or an edge reflection structure or a short reflector comprising not more than three electrodes. See Fig. 4.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a crystal cut of a quartz material of the quartz material layer of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) with angle φ in a range of -14° to -24°, angle Ɵ in a range of -25° to -45° and angle ψ in a range of +8° to +28°, and the features of claims 5 and 15, as taught by Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), in order to advantageously and the reflector structure as set forth in claims 5 and 15, "achieve optimum filtering conditions." See abstract of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claims 3, 4, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1).
See the description of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), supra.
As per claim 15, see the rejection of claim 5, supra.
As per claim 18, see the rejection of claim 8, supra.
As per claim 3, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) remains silent with regard to providing a bulk substrate, and wherein the quartz material layer is formed over the bulk substrate, wherein, as per claim 14, the bulk substrate comprises a Si bulk substrate or a sapphire bulk substrate.
As per claim 4, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein at least one of the first and second reflection structures comprises or consists of a Bragg mirror.
Such substrates and/or reflection structures, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1)/ Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), wherein as per claim 3, a bulk substrate is provided, upon which a piezoelectric material is formed over the bulk substrate, wherein, as per claim 14, the bulk substrate comprises a Si bulk substrate or a sapphire bulk substrate, wherein as per claim 4, at least one of the first and second reflection structures comprises or consists of a Bragg mirror. See, inter alia, Fig. 1B, paragraphs [0029, 0030, 0038, 0057] of Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the substrates and/or reflection structures, as set forth in claims 3, 4, and 14, to the acoustic wave device of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), as taught by Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), in order to advantageously provide an improved Quality Factor (Q-factor) by reflecting the acoustic energy back into the resonator, while providing a resonators with very low propagation loses, as is known in the art, as evidenced by Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) and Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1).
See the description of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), supra.
As per claims 9, 10, and 19, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) (and/or Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1)) remains silent with regard to providing wherein the first interdigitated transducer is split into two parts, the device further comprising a third reflection structure positioned between the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer (as per claims 9 and 10), and wherein the third reflection structure is a Bragg mirror (as per claim 10).
Such substrates and/or reflection structures, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1)/ Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1)/ Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), wherein as per claims 9 and 19, wherein a corresponding first interdigitated transducer is split into two parts (3, 4), the device further comprising a third reflection structure (e.g., 9) positioned between the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer (3, 4) - see Fig. 1 of Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1).
Moreover, although as per claim 10, although Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) as applied to Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), remains silent regarding wherein the third reflector is a Bragg reflector (mirror), Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1) disclose that such analogous reflectors configured as Bragg mirrors are known in the art.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) and Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first interdigitated transducer is split into two parts, the device further comprising a third reflection structure positioned between the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer (as per claims 9 and 10), and wherein the third reflection structure is a Bragg mirror (as per claim 10), to the acoustic device of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1), in the manner as taught by Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) and/or Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), in order to advantageously "significantly reduce line resistance and significantly reduce or prevent insertion loss" (see paragraph [0008] of Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1)) and provide an improved Quality Factor (Q-factor) by reflecting the acoustic energy back into the resonator, while providing a resonators with very low propagation loses, as is known in the art, as evidenced by Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 5,936,488).
See the description of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1), supra.
As per claim 11, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) remain silent with regard to wherein a length of one of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer differs from a length of the other one of the two parts and/or an aperture of one of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer differs from an aperture of the other one of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer.
Such features, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Taguchi et al. (US 5,936,488) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1)/ Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1)/ Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1), wherein as per claim 11, a length of one (e.g., 401) of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer (e.g., 401, 402) differs from a length of the other (e.g., 402) one of the two parts and/or an aperture of one (e.g., 401) of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer (401, 402) )differs from an aperture of the other one (e.g., 402) of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer (401, 402) - see title, abstract, Fig. 4.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Taguchi et al. (US 5,936,488), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a length of one of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer differs from a length of the other one of the two parts and/or an aperture of one of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer differs from an aperture of the other one of the two parts of the first interdigitated transducer, of Yasuda (US 2017/0244383 A1) (in combination with Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1)), in the manner taught by Taguchi et al. (US 5,936,488), in order to advantageously provide "a surface acoustic wave filter which is suitable for a balanced type circuit can be obtained. . . [and] in which the input and output impedances can be set to be different values." See col. 2, ll. 43-47 of Taguchi et al. (US 5,936,488).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2003/0001695 A1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2003/0001695 A1).
See the description of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1)/ Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), supra.
As per claims 12 and 20, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and/or Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), remains silent with regard to providing the first resonance cavity comprises first resonance sub- cavities separated from each other by first reflection sub-structures of the first reflection structure and the second resonance cavity comprises second resonance sub-cavities separated from each other by second reflection sub-structures of the second reflection structure.
Such substrates and/or reflection structures, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Nakamura et al. (US 2003/0001695 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1)/ Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1)/ Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), wherein as per claims 12 and 20, a corresponding first resonance cavity (e.g., space between the IDT (602) and the corresponding reflectors (e.g., 605, 701)) comprises first resonance sub- cavities (e.g., space between the IDT (602) and the corresponding reflectors (e.g., 605, 701) separated from each other by first reflection sub-structures (e.g., space between the reflectors (605a, 605b, 605c; 701a, 701b, 701c) and of the first reflection structure and the corresponding second resonance cavity (e.g., space between the IDT (602) and the corresponding reflectors (e.g., 606, 701)) comprises second resonance sub-cavities separated from each other by second reflection sub-structures (e.g., space between the reflectors (606a, 606b, 606c; 701a, 701b, 701c) of the second reflection structure.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Nakamura et al. (US 2003/0001695 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the structure as set forth in claims 12 and 20, to the acoustic wave device of Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) in view of Ballandras et al. (EP 0 998 037 A1) and/or Plesski et al. (US 2020/0182721 A1), in order to advantageously "improve balance characteristics compared to the conventional configuration." See paragraph [0281] of Nakamura et al. (US 2003/0001695 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that "the absorbing layers/substrates 108 and 118 cannot be identified with the claimed metallization layer or passivation layer that results in a completely different effect, namely, an increased sensitivity and accuracy of the sensing device due to the propagation characteristics of acoustic waves generated by the interdigitated transducer differing in the second resonance cavity from the ones in the first resonance cavity caused by the metallization layer or passivation layer." See page 9 of the Response.
The Examiner disagrees. Although the layer (108, 118) has an affect of absorbing chemicals, it additionally has a function of "mass loading" which affects the propagation characteristics within the second resonance cavity.
More concretely, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) discloses wherein an upper surface of the second resonance cavity (formed between the first interdigitated transducer (102, 112) and the second reflection structure (104, 114)) comprises a physical and/or chemical modification (e.g., inclusion of passive absorbing layer (e.g., 108, 118), which makes the material layer directly underneath less chemically reactive) as compared to an upper surface of the first resonance cavity (e.g., see Figs 1, 2, where this is an absence of such a layer (108, 118) on the upper surface of the first resonance cavity) and the physical and/or chemical modification comprises a metallization layer or passivation layer (e.g., inclusion of passive absorbing layer (e.g., 108, 118), which makes the material layer directly underneath less chemically reactive) formed on the upper surface of the second resonance cavity (formed between the first interdigitated transducer (102, 112) and the second reflection structure (104, 114)) resulting in that propagation characteristics of acoustic waves generated by the first interdigitated transducer (e.g., 102, 112) differ in the second resonance cavity from propagation characteristics of acoustic waves in the first resonance cavity. See, e.g. where the absorbing layer (e.g., 108, 118) acts to absorb chemicals of interest, which changes the "mass loading " along the acoustic path that "may result in a change in the resonant frequency." See abstract. That is, the absorbing layer does indeed affect the propagation characteristics of acoustic waves (via a delay time between the IDTs (102, 112) and the reflectors (104, 114) when compared with the first resonance cavity not having the absorbing layer) due to the mass loading of the chemicals passively absorbed by the absorbing layer (108, 118 ). See paragraph [0038, "the delay time is at least partially related to the amount of chemical and/or biochemical absorbed by the absorbing layer or substance." See further paragraph [0049], "As the absorbing layer or substance 204 absorbs more chemical and/or biochemical of interest, the mass loading along the acoustic path will increase, which will tend to increase the first delay 708." Note the claims do not in any way specify the material composition of the metallization or passivation layer. As such, Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) is seen to anticipate the newly added limitations (including its function) provided for in the amendment filed on April 8, 2026.
Applicant further alleges that the application of Ballandras and/or Plesski and/or Yasuda and/or Taguchi and/or Nakamura fail to cure the purported deficiencies of the amended limitations of claim 1, by Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1).
The Examiner as set forth, supra, maintains that Liu et al. (US 2006/0049714 A1) does meet the amended claim limitations of claim 1. Additionally, the rejection of the remainder of the claims in view of Ballandras and/or Plesski and/or Yasuda and/or Taguchi and/or Nakamura (see the rejections, supra) are maintained for the reasons articulated in detail, in the rejections, above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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 Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights