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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 14, 19-20 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 7, “light-adsorbing” should be changed to ---light-absorbing ---.
In claim 1, in line 8, the first instance of the word “and” should be deleted.
In claim 1, in line 11, “light-adsorbing” should be changed to --- light-absorbing ---. In claim 1, in line 21, --- one or more --- should be inserted before “ultrasound”.
In claim 1, in line 21, “transducer” should be changed to --- transducers ---.
In claim 7, in line 1, “produce” should be changed to – product ---.
In claim 14, in line 1, “a product” should be changed to --- the product ---.
In claim 19, in line 5, -- ultrasound --- should be inserted before “images”.
In claim 19, in the last line, “overlayed” should be changed to --- overlaid ---.
In claim 20, in line 3, --- the – should be inserted before “imaging”.
In claim 20, in line 4, “receiving” should be deleted.
In claim 20, in line 4, --- the --- should be inserted before “imaging data”.
In claim 20, in line 5, --- the --- should be inserted before “stored”.
In claim 25, in line 2, “the ultrasound transducer” should be deleted and replaced with --- the one or more ultrasound transducers ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 31 and 32 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.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites “The kit..further comprising: an applicator capable of delivering or applying the product of manufacture to a patient’s mouth”. However, though the specification does provide support for an applicator for applying a photoacoustic imaging agent to a patient’s mouth, wherein the applicator can be a syringe, etc., (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s PG-Pub 2025/0302313), the specification does not provide support for an applicator capable of delivering or applying the product of manufacture [which, as set forth in claims 1 and 14, comprises a mouthpiece or mold, one or more infrared lasers or one or more ultrasound transducers, etc..]. The claim therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Further, with regards to claims 31 and 32, which are dependent upon claim 16, though the specification does provide support for an applicator for applying a photoacoustic imaging agent comprising a syringe which is preloaded with the photoacoustic imaging agent (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s PG-Pub), the specification does not provide support for the applicator capable of delivering or applying the product of manufacture comprising of a syringe preloaded with the photoacoustic imaging agent. Claims 31 and 32 thus further fail to comply with the written description requirement for this reason as well.
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 16, 18, 20, 25 and 31-32 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.
With regards to claim 16, the claim is indefinite as being both incomplete, by its dependence on a cancelled claim and for lack of antecedent basis for its limitation (i.e. “The kit…”) which is not present in cancelled base claim 15. Amending claim 16 to refer to a claim which recites the kit, or deleting the claim, would obviate the rejection. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes claim 16 should be dependent upon claim 14. See MPEP 608.01(n)(V).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the acoustic transducer, and/or the optical transducer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7-8, 14, 16-20, 22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asch et al. (US Patent No. 6,638,219), as cited by Applicant.
With regards to claim 1, Asch et al. disclose a product of manufacture for generating imaging data and an image of a periodontal tissue or periodontium, a periodontal pocket depth image, or a periodontal probing measurement, comprising:
a mouthpiece or mold configured to fit over one or several teeth, or all teeth in a maxillary or mandibular arch, or both (column 4, lines 35-39, referring to “In order to fit snugly over the tooth to be mapped, the open rim of the housing will be fitted with a gasket of soft, deformable material…developed to fit on the gum and around the tooth. It is desirable for the gasket to be relatively water tight….”, and therefore the fitted gasket that is molded (i.e. “fit snuggly over the tooth..”) over the tooth encompasses a “mold” that is capable of fitting over one or more teeth); and
built into or onto or affixed to the mouthpiece or mold (column 4, lines 9-37, referring to the plurality of transducers which are positioned on a rotating arc within a shell, which acts as the housing for the array, wherein the primary function of the housing is to contain and guide motion of the transducer array) are:
(ii)one or more infrared lasers capable of exciting a light-adsorbing target and photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding one or more high frequency ultrasound transducers capable of receiving wideband acoustic waves, wherein the received back wideband acoustic waves comprise imaging data that can be used to image the light-adsorbing target, and/or
(ii) one or more ultrasound transducers (i.e. “transducer array providing a plurality of transducers which will both emit and receive ultrasonic wave activity”) capable of sending to a target and receiving back from the target high-frequency pulses of sound, wherein the received back high-frequency pulses of sound comprise imaging data (i.e. “two or three dimensional depiction of the structure”) that can be used to image the target (column 3, line 48-column 4, line 3, referring to the transducer array which emits and receives ultrasound and thus corresponds to an ultrasound sensor and referring to the transducer array detecting an echo pulse which is amplified and sent to an analog/digital converter to convert the reflected pulse signal to a digital code which is used to recreate and display a 2D or 3D depiction (i.e. image) of the structure; column 5, lines 3-6, referring to the sensor elements being designed to a broadband sound pulse with a center frequency in the range of 10-20 MHz (i.e. high frequency pulses of sound); column 6, lines 17-21, referring to the acquired data being transmitted electronically to remote sites for further evaluation or archival; Figures 1-2),
wherein the ultrasound transducer of (i) and/or (ii) are capable of transmitting the imaging data to a remote receiver (column 6, lines 17-21, referring to the acquired data being transmitted electronically to remote sites for further evaluation or archival; Figures 1-2).
With regards to the limitations directed to the “remote receiver”, “wherein the remote receiver is configured to use the imaging data to create an image of the periodontium, the periodontal tissue, the periodontal pocket depth image, or the periodontal probing measurement”, the limitations are directed to an intended use and/or manner of operating the claimed product of manufacture as the “remote receiver” is not positively recited as part of the claimed product. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the ultrasound transducer of Asch et al. is capable of transmitting the image data to any remote site, including a remote receiver configured to use the imaging data to create the claimed image, Asch et al. meet the limitation.
With regards to claim 2, Asch et al. disclose that the mouthpiece or mold comprises an outer body (i.e. gasket body which is fitted in the open rim of the housing) shaped to fit over or cover the one or several teeth, or all teeth, or covers periodontium or gingiva in an arch (column 4, lines 34-39; Figure 2) and the one or more infrared lasers and corresponding one or more high frequency ultrasound transducers of (i), and/or the one or more ultrasound transducers of (ii), are disposed within or on the outer body (column 4, lines 6-17, 29-51, referring to the arc-shaped, linear array of ultrasonic sensors which are contained in the housing, and thus are disposed on or within the outer body of the mold/gasket which is in the open rim of the housing; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 3, Asch et al. disclose that the one or more infrared lasers and corresponding one or more high frequency ultrasound transducers of (i), and/or the one or more ultrasound transducers of (ii), are disposed within or on the outer body to align with the one or several teeth, or all teeth, in an arch when the outer body is inserted into a patient’s mouth (column 4, lines 6-17, 28-51, referring to the arc-shaped, linear array of ultrasonic sensors being with a shell/housing and is rotated around and over the tooth, which would require the transducers to be aligned with the one or more teeth when the outer body (i.e. part of the housing) is inserted into a patient’s mouth; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 6, Asch et al. disclose that their product or dental device further comprises a wired (i.e. cable) or wireless transmittal device to transmit the imaging data to a computer and/or a database, or to an electronic medical record, or to a computer hard disk or computer memory, to a cloud-based storage source (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable to an electronic receiver; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 7, Asch et al. disclose that the product further comprises a non-transitory memory capable of storing the imaging data (column 3, line 64-column 4, line 1; column 6, lines 17-21, referring to storing the acquired data; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 8, Asch et al. disclose that their product or device further comprises an acoustic coupling medium or a gel capable of transmitting acoustic pressure waves (column 4, lines 18-34, lines 38-39, 52-59, referring to the “couplant” which is a material which allows sound to be conducted from the transducer into the tooth and wherein the reflected sound waves would transmit through the couplant when they are detected by the sensor; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 14, Asch et al. disclose a kit comprising a product of manufacture of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, wherein the claimed components of the mouthpiece/mold and photoacoustic imaging sensors/transducers form the “kit”).
With regards to claim 16, Asch et al. disclose that the kit further comprises an applicator capable of delivering or applying the product of manufacture to a patient’s mouth (column 4, lines 39-51, referring to the drive mechanism which can be activated to swing the sensor array in an arc over and around the tooth, and thus the “drive mechanism” serves as the claimed applicator capable of applying the sensor array (i.e. part of the product of manufacture) to a patient’s mouth).
With regards to clam 17, Asch et al. disclose that kit further comprises a processing device configured to receive the imaging data and generate at least one image of the periodontal tissue or periodontium (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the “computing means” which can recreate and display a two or three dimensional depiction (i.e. image) of the structure being studied; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 18, Asch et al. disclose that said processing device comprises: a processor (column 4, lines 59-65, referring to the computer); a wired or wireless interface for operably communicating, directly or indirectly, with the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable (i.e. “wired”) to an electronic receiver; Figure 1); and computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory memory for causing the processor to receive the imaging data and generate the at least one image of the periodontal tissue or periodontium (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the “computing means” which can recreate and display a two or three dimensional depiction (i.e. image) of the structure being studied; column 6, lines 17-21, referring to storing the acquired data; column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface below the gum line, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontium; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 19, Asch et al. disclose that said processing device is further configured to generate at least two ultrasound images of the periodontal tissue or periodontium, or portion thereof (column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface below the gum line, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontum; column 6, lines 9-16, referring to the multiple sagittal slices/images being acquired); overlay each of the at least two images and produce a composite image from the overlaid at least two images (column 6, lines 9-16, referring to the acquired 2D sagittal slices being “combined” with other sagittal slices to form a three-dimensional phased tomographic reconstruction and a three-dimensional view of the dental structure being examined, and therefore the 3D reconstruction corresponds to a “composite image” as it is a result of overlaying/combining multiple images).
With regards to claim 20, Asch et al. disclose that the kit further comprises an additional processing device configured to receive the imaging data directly from the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors, and configured to store receiving imaging data, and configured to transmit stored imaging data, wherein the additional processing device is wired and/or wirelessly operatively connected to the processing device (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the reflected echo pulse signals being amplified by an amplification means and sent to an analog/digital converter, wherein the amplification means and/or analog/digital converter can be viewed as corresponding to the “additional processing device” and further referring to storing the acquired data; alternatively, see column 6, lines 16-21, referring to the acquired data can be stored as raw data and transmitted electronically to remote sites for further evaluation or archival, and therefore, alternatively, the inherent processing device for the evaluation at the remote site can be viewed as corresponding to the “processing device”, whereas the “computing means” set forth in column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1 can be viewed as corresponding to the “additional processing device”, or vice-a-versa; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable to an electronic receiver; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 22, Asch et al. disclose that (a) the periodontal tissue or periodontium comprises an oral mucosa or gingiva (column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface “below the gum line”, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontum comprising gingiva/gums) (b) the mouthpiece or mold fits over or covers at least part of a periodontal tissue or periodontium (column 4, lines 34-51, Figure 2, note that the mold/fitted gasket is within the open rim of the housing which is arc shaped and covers gums/periodontal tissue as seen in Fig. 2); (c) the mouthpiece or mold is manufactured to image and collect signals from a contrasting or imaging agent when the mouthpiece or mold is placed or fitted over the one or several or all teeth in the arch or (d) the mouthpiece or mold is manufactured to hold, carry and deliver to a contrasting agent or an imaging agent to a periodontal tissue or periodontium when the mouthpiece or mold is placed or fitted over the one or several or all teeth in the arch, or covers a periodontal tissue, periodontium or gingiva).
With regards to claim 25, Asch et al. disclose that the ultrasound transducer, the acoustic transducer, and/or optical transducer is operatively linked to a wired or wireless transmittal device (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable (i.e. “wired”) to an electronic receiver; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 26, Asch et al. disclose that the product of manufacture is manufactured as a dental device (column 1, line 54-column 2, line 19, referring to the invention being employed to diagnose dental conditions and to acquire ultrasonic data from dental structures).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asch et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent No. 10,799,210), as cited by Applicant. Note that the Provisional application No. 62/553,629 of Zhang et al. supports the below relied upon teachings (see the entire specification/drawings of the provisional application which appears to be a copy of the Zhang Patent).
With regards to claim 4, as discussed above, Asch et al. meet the above limitations of claim 2. However, though Asch et al. do disclose that the one or more ultrasound transducers are disposed within or on the outer body (column 4, lines 6-17, 29-51, referring to the arc-shaped, linear array of ultrasonic sensors which are contained in the housing, and thus are disposed on or within the outer body of the mold/gasket which is in the open rim of the housing; Figure 2), Asch et al. do not specifically disclose that the product of manufacture further comprise one or more light generators.
Zhang et al. disclose an intraoral scanning device including a scan head sized and shaped to be placed inside a patient’s mouth, wherein a scan head (58) of the intraoral scanning device has one or more sensors (i.e. ultrasonic array (74)) for generating images of tissue inside the patient’s mouth, including ultrasound images and/or optical images (Abstract; column 6, line 43-64; Figures 6-7). The scan head (58) can further include a separate pulse generator electrically connected to LED’s 76 and/or 78 to produce ultrasonic images via photoacoustic imaging without ultrasonic transmitters (column 8, lines 33-36). The LED’s produce short optical pulse signals on the surface of tissue inside the mouth (teeth or gum tissue), wherein the short optical pulse signals generate ultrasound waves via photacoustic effect that travel through tissue in the mouth (column 8, lines 36-42). The ultrasound waves that are reflected from the internal structures of the tissue are received by piezoelectric transducers and converted into electrical signals, which can be processed and converted into viewable ultrasonic images (column 8, lines 42-50; Figure 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the product of manufacture of Asch et al. further comprise one or more light generators, as taught by Zhang et al., in order to be provide an alternative technique for producing ultrasonic images via photoacoustic imaging without ultrasonic transmitters (column 8, lines 33-36).
With regards to claim 5, Zhang et al. disclose that the one or more light generators (76, 78) are received within a plurality of openings in a gum-facing surface of the outer body (column 8, lines 19-50; see Figures 6-7, note that the LEDs (76,78) are within openings in a surface of the probe that is capable of facing gums).
With regards to claim 23, Zhang et al. disclose that the one or more light generators (76, 78) comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (column 8, lines 19-39, 46-50, referring to the LEDs (76, 78); Figure 6).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 24, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asch et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (“Photoacoustic Imaging for Noninvasive Periodontal Probing Depth Measurements”, Published online 9/7/22), as cited by Applicant.
With regards to claims 9 and 29, as discussed above, Asch et al. meet the limitations of claims 1 and 14. However, they do not specifically disclose that their device further comprises a photoacoustic imaging agent [claim 9/29] and/or acoustic coupling medium or a gel [claim 29].
Lin et al. disclose a periodontal probe for periodontal examinations, wherein photoacoustic ultrasound is used for high-spatial resolution imaging of probing depths (Abstract). Photoacoustic imaging was used in tandem with a food-grade oral rinse (i.e. food-based imaging agent) to estimate probing depths, wherein it was shown that photoacoustic imaging can serve as a complementary tool for the dental community to image pockets and measure probe depth non-invasively (Abstract; pg. 24, left column, first paragraph; pg. 27, left column, referring to the “squid ink contrast agent”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the device of Asch et al. further comprise a photoacoustic imaging agent, as taught by Lin et al., in order to provide high-spatial resolution imaging of probing depths and dental pockets (Abstract).
With regards to claims 10, 28 and 30, Lin et al. disclose that the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises melanin nanoparticles (i.e. optical absorber comprising a melanin) (pg. 25, Section “Characterization of Cuttlefish Ink Derivatives”, referring to the cuttlefish ink containing spherical melanin nanoparticles).
With regards to claims 24, 27 and 30, Lin et al. disclose that the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises a food based imaging agent (“food-grade oral rinse”), the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises a food-grade squid ink, the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises a cornstarch or the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises an optical absorber, or an optical absorber comprising a melanin (Abstract; pg. 24, left column, first paragraph; pg. 27, left column, referring to the “squid ink contrast agent”; pg. 25, Section “Characterization of Cuttlefish Ink Derivatives”, referring to the cuttlefish ink containing spherical melanin nanoparticles; pg. 24, Section “Reagents” and “Preparation of Cuttlefish Ink Derivatives”, referring to the cornstarch enhanced contrast agent; pg. 26, Section “Discussion”, referring to the melanin nanoparticles in cuttlefish ink servings as a contrast agent for noninvasive measurements of probing depths, wherein melanin has broad optical absorption for photoacoustic imaging).
Examiner’s Note
With regards to claims 31 and 32, the claims are currently rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims are not currently rejected under prior art as the prior art does not teach or suggest the unsupported limitations directed to the applicator [which is capable of delivering or applying the product of manufacture which comprises the mouthpiece or mold, the one or more ultrasound transducers, etc.] being a syringe or being preloaded with the photoacoustic imaging agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Asch, Applicant argues that Asch teaches use of mechanical ultrasound waves for both excitation and detection, whereas, in contrast, in one embodiment, the claimed product of manufacture uses optical excitation to induce thermoeleastic expansion, generating wideband acoustic waves, etc..
However, Examienr notes that the claims sets forth that the product of manufacture comprises “(i) one or more infrared lasers…and/or (ii) one or more ultrasound transducers”. The limitation therefore is met by Asch as Asch does teach a product of manufacture comprising “(ii) one or more ultrasound transducers…”. Examiner emphasizes that the above limitation can be met by teaching either (i) or (ii), and therefore since Asch does disclose (ii), Asch does meet the limitation of claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed product of manufacture of this invention can achieve by ultrasound a spatial resolution of 100 um when using a 40-MHz transducer; and when in photoacoustic mode, can achieve a resolution of approximately 300 um”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner respectfully refers Applicant to the above rejection of claim 1 which sets forth how Asch does teach the claimed limitations.
The claims therefore remain rejected under the previously applied prior art.
Conclusion
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 KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights