DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed 8/11/26.
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 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 1-2, 4-14, 16-17, 20, and 24 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 1-2, 8-10, 17, 20, and 24 recite the term “about.” The term "about" is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite; it is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as "almost or nearly—used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how “almost or nearly” a value must be to be within “about” a specific target. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claims are unclear. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “about” as within 25%. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claims 2, 4-14, and 16 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 1. Claim 20 inherits the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on its dependencies on claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 17, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4-14, 16, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-17, 20, and 24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 17, 20, and 24 are and were 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention due to inclusion of the word “about”, which renders the claim(s) indefinite.
Applicant argues that the term “about” is definite because paragraph [0037] of the Specification states that “about” includes values within 10% of a nominal value (Remarks, pp 5). However, the examiner does not find this sufficiently definite because the term “about” is not specifically defined as that only within ±10% of a nominal value, merely that “about” includes values within 10% of a nominal value. Said another way, paragraph [0037] suggests that values within 10% can be considered sufficiently enough to be “about” a target value, but the language in the Specification (“includes”) is open ended as to an upper bound by which a deviation is no longer “about” a target value. Thus, paragraph [0037] of the Specification does not sufficiently define the term “about” as used in claims 1-2, 8-10, 17, 20, and 24 and the use of the term “about” renders claims 1-2, 8-10, 17, 20, and 24 indefinite.
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 REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 10/5/2026
Prosecution Insights