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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 10/30/25 in which claims 1-10 were amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, ln 15 recites “a shrinkage and expansion coefficients of raw materials before and after molding” which appears to be a misstatement of “shrinkage and expansion coefficients of raw materials before and after molding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lns 10-14 recite the limitation "based on data of simulated material database and simulated bone model library, specifically qualities of a target bone, obtaining a design plan including raw material composition, dosage, and process conditions through computer finite element method analysis" and since computer finite element method analysis is understood to use software to break complex products into small elements (like tiny cubes) connected at nodes, then applies math to simulate real-world forces (stress, heat, vibration) on these elements to predict the whole product's performance, saving time and cost by virtually testing designs before physical prototypes, it is unclear how one would obtain a design plan including raw material composition, dosage, and process conditions through computer finite element method analysis based on a target bone. Claim 1 ln 15 recites the limitation "shrinkage and expansion coefficients of raw materials before and after molding" and it is unclear what is meant by this because there wouldn’t be any raw materials after molding. Also, Claim 1 lns 21-22 recite the limitation "mixing the basic masterbatch with filler "b", foaming agent and glass microsphere etc., to obtain the raw materials of injection" and it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this phrase are because of the “etc.”.
Claims 2-10 are similarly unclear as claim 1 because they depend from claim 1, therefore all claims are unclear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743