DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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 13-14 and 16-33 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.
In reference to claims 13, 14, and 16-24:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a net-like structure” in lines 7-8. The use of “net-like” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim what the scope of “net-like” is and the application, as filed, does not provide sufficient disclosure to reasonably determine the scope of “net-like”.
Claims 14 and 16-24 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim and not providing sufficient further limitations to overcome the indefiniteness.
In reference to claims 25-29:
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a net-like structure” in line 5. The use of “net-like” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim what the scope of “net-like” is and the application, as filed, does not provide sufficient disclosure to reasonably determine the scope of “net-like”.
Claims 26-29 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim and not providing sufficient further limitations to overcome the indefiniteness.
In reference to claims 30-33:
Claim 30 recites the limitation “a net-like structure” in line 2. The use of “net-like” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim what the scope of “net-like” is and the application, as filed, does not provide sufficient disclosure to reasonably determine the scope of “net-like”.
Claims 31-33 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim and not providing sufficient further limitations to overcome the indefiniteness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 last full paragraph, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claim 13, and dependents thereof, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 of 09/03/2025 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Konstantino (US20120059401A1)
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights