DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Drawing objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 17, 2026. However, the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 17, 2026, in view of Pgs 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed July 20, 2026 are unpersuasive and is maintained and addressed as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, the amended claim limitations in claim 1, lines 35-36, of “less than or equal to 4.5 and greater than 1”, claim 1, line 38, of “greater than or equal to 0.08 mm”, claim 2, line 23, of “less than or equal to 4.5”, and claim 2, line 26, of “greater than or equal to 0.08 mm”, appears to be directed to 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(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Applicant’s amended claim limitations in claims 1-2 as indicated above does not appear to be described in Applicant’s originally filed Specification. The Examiner respectfully notes that Paragraphs 0047 and 0050 of Applicant’s originally filed Specification indicates “less than or equal to about 4.5 and greater than about 1” and “about 0.08 mm or greater”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Pgs 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed July 20, 2026, Applicant indicates that the subjective modifier of “about” has been removed to leave the precise and quantifiable boundaries of “4.5, “1”, and “0.08”, respectively, and to remove any possible indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112. Further, Applicant argues these precise boundaries are clearly supported by the originally filed specification, including in paragraphs [0047] and [0050], as the modifying term “about” in the specification merely indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art machining tolerances and the specification’s recitation of “about 4.5”, “about 1”, and “about 0.08” fully discloses and encompasses or includes the precise boundaries of “4.5”, “1”, and “0.08”, respectively. The Examiner notes that Applicant has amended the claims to remove the subjective modifier of “about” to remove any possible indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), however, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims were not rejected under indefiniteness, i.e. 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for written description. Further, the Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s argument of the modifying term “about” in the specification merely indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art machining tolerances does not appear to be provided in the originally filed Specification. As noted in Applicant’s Remarks on Pg 8, the Examiner agrees that MPEP 2163.02 indicates that the subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement, however, MPEP 2163.02 also indicates that if a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, i.e. “about”, the Examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. Accordingly, Applicant’s Remarks, in view of the claim amendments to remove the subjective modifier of “about”, are unpersuasive.
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding Applicant’s amended claims 1-2 as filed July 20, 2026, the Examiner respectfully notes modified Wilson, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 6, 2026, forming a ratio of 0.5 would appear to read on Applicant’s originally filed Specification of “less than or equal to about 4.5 and greater than about 1”. Further, the Examiner suggests amending claims 1-2 to include the term “about” to overcome the 112(a) rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights