DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action follows a reply filed on 03/02/2026. Per the reply, claims 1, 4, and 19 have been amended and claims 2-3 and 5-6 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, and 7-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The outstanding rejection of claims 1-2 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Sandstrom et al has been obviated by the amendments to base claim 1.
The outstanding rejection of claims 1-2 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Lee et al has been obviated by the amendments to base claim 1.
Further, the Applicant has amended to address all outstanding formality issues identified in the previous Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
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.
Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al
(Materials and Design 172 (2019) 107774) (‘Lee’).
The basis of the rejection and the Examiner's position regarding the applied art are adequately
set forth in the previous Office action (see pp. 7-9), and that explanation is incorporated herein by
reference.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed unpersuasive with respect to the repeated rejection supra.
Noting that claims 3-6 were indicated as allowable, if the outstanding 112 rejections were overcome, Applicant urges that “the rejection are overcome as indicated by the above amendment” (Reply, p. 1).
Examiner disagrees because, firstly, the amendment to independent claim 1 in no way affects
the scope of independent claim 15, or claims 16-19 dependent thereon. Therefore, the limitations
added to base claim 1 cannot serve as a basis for distinguishing the other independent claim herein
over the applied art. Finally, it is noted that the Reply presents no specific traversal argument(s) directed to the substantive disclosure of Lee et al, which forms the basis of the maintained rejection.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the continued rejection of claims 15-19 is still deemed tenable and therefore must be maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 7-14 are allowed.
Claim 20 stands objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claim.
The closest prior art to Sandstrom et al and Lee et al, discussed in the previous Office action, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 1, 4, 7-14 and 20, or provide proper rationale to modify either of their respective inventions into the invention of any of said claims.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/03-21-26
Prosecution Insights