This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on February 4, 2026.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1-6 are objected to because amended independent claim 1’s “including broken down portions the dielectric material” should apparently read “including broken down portions of the dielectric material.” Claims 2-6 depend on independent claim 1 and are thus similarly objected to.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe amended independent claim 1 as a whole, including “conductive filaments including broken down portions [of] the dielectric material.” Claims 2-6 depend on independent claim 1 and are thus similarly rejected.
The applicant’s argument that support for the amendment to claim 1 can be found in paragraphs [0035] and [0042] of the specification is incorrect. Those paragraphs do not describe “conductive filaments including broken down portions [of] the dielectric material.” Indeed, such appears to be a contradiction in terms (see below).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, amended independent claim 1 is unclear in reciting “conductive filaments including broken down portions [of] the dielectric material.” Claims 2-6 depend on independent claim 1 and are thus similarly rejected.
Claims 7-14 are allowed.
The applicant’s other arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The examiner recommends that independent claim 1 be amended to correspond to claim 4 as presented in the amendment filed on November 3, 2025. Given that there are allowed claims and an unproductive interview has already been held, a second interview will not be granted.
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.
Registered practitioners can telephone the examiner at (571) 272-1843. Any voicemail message left for the examiner should include the registration number of the registered practitioner calling. The examiner’s supervisor is Wael Fahmy, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1705.
/MARK V PRENTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814