DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 2/22/26:
claims 1-20 are presently pending
the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) are maintained for one ground as set forth in the nonfinal action and withdrawn for another
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn but the rejection of claim 3 is maintained
claims 4-7 and 13-19 are allowed
Specification
The substitute specification filed 2/22/26 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: there is no accompanying statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter and a marked up copy of the changes in addition to the clean version.
Please note that another specification (clean and marked up with the required statement) or listing of specification amendments will be required that complies with 37 CFR 1.121(b). See MPEP §714.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-3, 8-12 and 20 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.
Specifically, it is noted that claims 1 and 20 have each been amended after filing, so as to include limitations that require that the controller sheets comprise “one or more of the following: multiple track injection sheets, liquid control sheets, and mesh material sheets” (see claim 1 at lines 6-7; see claim 20 at lines 4-5).
However, the specification does not appear to support this disclosure as originally filed. Specifically, it is noted that the specification discloses the liquid controller as including three types of sheets including the multiple track injection sheets, liquid control sheets and mesh material sheets with the number of the sheets ranging from 3 to 10,000 (see Specification at page 4, third paragraph). As such, there doesn’t appear to be support for the controller sheets being just one of the listed three types of sheets as the claims currently now allow for. Instead, it would seem that the minimum number of sheets is disclosed as being three, with one of each of the three types of sheets being present (see Specification at page 4, third paragraph).
While it is noted that the amendment filed 2/22/26 addresses the issue raised as to the total number of sheets, it doesn’t address the fact that the claim as presently presented still could have three sheets of just one of the three types of sheets as opposed to requiring a minimum of at least one of each of the three types of sheets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3 and 8-11 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said one or more puncture channels on the surface" in lines 14-15 in referring to the “liquid control sheets” earlier recited. However, while it is noted that the “multiple track injection sheets” in claim 1 have been set forth as containing puncture channels (see claim 1 at lines 8-9), the liquid control sheets have not been so defined. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note, all other claims not explicitly recited above are included herein only as a result of their dependency and for no other reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons as set forth in the maintained grounds of rejection above.
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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794