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 Construction
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating unit” in claims 7, 8, and 10-18; and,
“image forming unit” in claims 13-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Zhu, CN 113280667.
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhu teaches, and thus anticipates, the “semi-finished product of the liquid absorbing core 30 in step S101 refers to the liquid absorbing core 30 in the related art (conventional process), specifically the liquid absorbing core 30 which is not treated by the redox reaction.” As such, the rejection is based on the “conventional process” prior art as described by Zhu without step S102, upon which Applicants rely to distinguish Zhu because S102 reduces the oxide layer to an elemental copper layer.
Thus, Zhu teaches a heat pipe (100) comprising:
a tubular member (the tube defined by first cover plate 10 and second cover plate 20, which are made of aluminum: “The temperature equalization plate 100 may include a first cover plate 10, a second cover plate 20, a liquid absorbing core 30 and a working medium 40. wherein the first cover plate 10 and the second cover plate 20 can be sealed connected to form a containing cavity 101; the liquid absorbing core 30 is contained in the containing cavity 101 and can be fixedly connected with the first cover plate 10.” and, “The material of the first cover plate 10 and the second cover plate 20 can be one of simple substance copper, copper alloy, aluminium alloy, magnesium alloy and other metal materials, which is not specifically limited.”) that is a hollow member in which liquid (water: “Because the surface tension of the water is relatively large, under normal condition, the working medium 40 is water.”) is encapsulated and of which an inner surface is subjected to an oxidation treatment (aluminum oxidizes within about 100 picoseconds) in advance (the oxidation occurs in advance of the end of the universe); and
a wick structure provided over the inner surface of the tubular member (the liquid absorbing core 30, which is made of copper (infra)) that moves the liquid encapsulated and liquefied in the tubular member along a longitudinal direction of the tubular member by means of a capillary phenomenon (“wherein the first cover plate 10 is an evaporation part and adhered with the heat source, for absorbing the heat of the heat source and the absorbed heat transferred to the working medium 40; the second cover plate 20 is a condensing part for cooling the working medium 40. Specifically, the first cover plate 10 is heated, the first cover plate 10 heated position corresponding to the liquid absorbing core 30 of the working medium 40 evaporation, evaporation state of the working medium 40 close to one side of the second cover plate 20 under the micro pressure difference of one side after cooling and condensing into liquid and releasing the heat; then the liquid after the liquid absorbing core 30 provided by the capillary force is returned to the first cover plate 10 side, so as to circulate the reciprocating.”) and of which a surface is subjected to an oxidation treatment (“The semi-finished product of the liquid absorbing core 30 in step S101 refers to the liquid absorbing core 30 in the related art (conventional process), specifically the liquid absorbing core 30 which is not treated by the redox reaction. Wherein, the high temperature oxidation treatment may be: the liquid absorbing core 30 of the semi-finished product is placed in oxygen, oxygen nitrogen mixed gas or air in the air atmosphere, heating for 0.5h to 4h in the environment of 100 to 400 ° C centigrade. In this embodiment, the copper is placed in the oven, the oven is injected into the air. It can be understood that the temperature of the heating environment can be 100 ° C, 150 ° C, 200 ° C, 250 ° C, 300 ° C, 350 ° C, a certain temperature of 400 ° C, here not specifically limited. the heating time can be 0.5h, 1h, 1.5h, 2h, 3h or 4h, which is not specifically limited. In some other ways, the copper can be placed in a reaction environment with controllable temperature such as a high temperature reaction furnace, so as to accurately control the oxidation temperature.”) in advance (the oxidation is done in advance of its intended use, and it is also done in advance of the end of the universe),
wherein the inner surface of the tubular member and the surface of the wick structure comprise a thermally generated oxide layer retained on the inner surface of the tubular member and the surface of the wick structure and is in contact with the liquid encapsulated in the tubular member (As Applicants admit, Remarks page 10, any reduction in Zhu happens in step S102, which is a departure from what Zhu calls the “conventional process”. As the rejection is based on the “conventional process” as described by Zhu, there is no step S102, which Applicants admit is required for Zhu to deviate from the claims. Placing in the oven in S101 produces a “thermally generated oxide layer”.).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, wherein the tubular member and the wick structure are subjected to the oxidation treatment by being heated before encapsulation of the liquid (all materials have a temperature greater than absolute zero, therefore the oxidation of the aluminum within the 100 picoseconds and the oxidation of the liquid absorbing core occurs while being heated in ambient conditions, and the oxidation of the liquid absorbing core also occurs within an oven (supra)).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how the product is actually made. See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964, 777 F. 2d 695 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459, F.2d, 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
The “conventional process” of Zhu shows all structural aspects of the claimed invention. The step of a “wherein the oxidation treatment of the tubular member and the wick structure is performed for a time in a range of from 4 hours to 8 hours” is an intermediate step that does not affect the structure of the final device. Should there be any structural differences between the thermally generated oxide layer of the “conventional process” of Zhu and the thermally generated oxide layer of the disclosure, Applicants are invited to include those structural differences in the claims.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, wherein the liquid consists of pure water (“Because the surface tension of the water is relatively large, under normal condition, the working medium 40 is water.”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, wherein the tubular member and the wick structure react with the pure water, so that an oxide is generated (as Applicants allege, ¶ 85 of U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0142902, and ¶ 83 of the Specification as filed, the materials of both the pipe body and the liquid absorbing core are identical to those described by Zhu in the “conventional process”, and as Applicants further allege and claim, such materials react with pure water so that an oxide is generated, therefore the identical materials of Zhu inherently react with pure water so that an oxide is generated, MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Schuman, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2008/0124150.
Examiner had taken official notice that aluminum inherently oxidizes within about 100 picoseconds, as evinced by dragon abrasives (see MPEP 2124).
Examiner had further taken official notice that all materials have a temperature greater than absolute zero.
Because Applicant failed to “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, [including] stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art”, Applicant has admitted the above noticed facts. MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding independent claim 1, a heat pipe comprising:
a tubular member (heat pipe 26) that is a hollow member (¶ 17, describing it as a tube) in which liquid (¶ 17, water) is encapsulated and of which an inner surface is subjected to an oxidation treatment (¶ 17, the tube is made of aluminum, which oxidizes within 100 picoseconds) in advance (it has oxidized in advance of the end of the universe); and
a wick structure provided over the inner surface of the tubular member (¶ 17, the wick or capillary structure 32 that lines the inner walls of the aluminum tube, such as “a number of longitudinal grooves in the inner surface of the tube providing a capillary structure”, evincing that they too are made of aluminum) that moves the liquid encapsulated and liquefied in the tubular member along a longitudinal direction of the tubular member by means of a capillary phenomenon (¶ 17) and of which a surface is subjected to an oxidation treatment (¶ 17, as made of aluminum, it oxidizes within 100 picoseconds ) in advance (it has oxidized in advance of the end of the universe),
wherein the inner surface of the tubular member and the surface of the wick structure comprise a thermally generated oxide layer (¶ 17, all of the materials listed comprising the wick and capillary structure oxidize by thermal processes) retained on the inner surface of the tubular member (¶ 17) and the surface of the wick structure and is in contact with the liquid encapsulated in the tubular member (¶ 17).
Additionally and alternatively, a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how the product is actually made. See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964, 777 F. 2d 695 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459, F.2d, 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
Schuman shows all structural aspects of the claimed invention. The step of a “thermally generated oxide layer” is an intermediate step that does not affect the structure of the final device. Should there be any structural differences between the thermally generated oxide layer of Schuman and the thermally generated oxide layer of the disclosure, Applicants are invited to include those structural differences in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, wherein the tubular member and the wick structure are subjected to the oxidation treatment by being heated before encapsulation of the liquid (all materials have a temperature greater than absolute zero, therefore the oxidation within the 100 picoseconds occurred by being heated in ambient conditions).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how the product is actually made. See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964, 777 F. 2d 695 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459, F.2d, 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
Schuman shows all structural aspects of the claimed invention. The step of a “wherein the oxidation treatment of the tubular member and the wick structure is performed for a time in a range of from 4 hours to 8 hours” is an intermediate step that does not affect the structure of the final device. Should there be any structural differences between the thermally generated oxide layer of Schuman and the thermally generated oxide layer of the disclosure, Applicants are invited to include those structural differences in the claims.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, wherein the liquid consists of pure water (¶ 17).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, wherein the tubular member and the wick structure react with the pure water, so that an oxide is generated (as Applicants allege, ¶ 85 of U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0142902, and ¶ 83 of the Specification as filed, the materials of both the pipe body and the wicks are identical to those described by Schuman, ¶ 17, and as Applicants further allege and claim, such materials react with pure water so that an oxide is generated, therefore the identical materials of Schumann inherently react with pure water so that an oxide is generated, MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, which depend from claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, a fixing device comprising:
a heating unit (24) that heats a fixation target member; and
a heat pipe (26) that comes into contact with the heating unit,
wherein the heat pipe according to [one of] claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, respectively (supra), is used as the heat pipe.
Regarding claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, which depend from claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, respectively, an image forming apparatus comprising:
an image forming unit (¶ 2, the unit that undertakes the electrophotographic process) that forms an image on a recording medium; and
the fixing device according to [one of] claims 7, 8, 11, and 12, respectively (supra) that fixes the image on the recording medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuman, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2008/0124150, in view of Yang et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0131753.
Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that the claims require intentionally undertaking an oxidation treatment prior to their intended use.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321, [98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1013] (Fed.Cir.2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, [72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1209] (Fed.Cir.2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, [23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1058] (Fed.Cir.1992). "Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, [72 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1212]. …. "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, [23 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1061]. "If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection." Id.
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348, 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1991, 1993 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Both Schuman and Yang et al. are within the field of Applicants’ endeavor. Applicants’ field of endeavor her is heat pipes with wicking structures for electronic apparatus generally, and more specifically, heat pipes for use in electrophotography. Here, Yang et al. is directed toward wicking structures as thermal transport structures in electronics. Schuman is directed toward heat pipes with wicking structures for use in electrophotography. Both Schuman and Yang et al. are within the field of Applicants’ endeavor.
The problem Applicants are trying to solve is providing thermal equalization without affecting heating, ¶ 82 of U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0142902, and ¶ 80 of the Specification as filed. Yang et al. solve the problem of to creating large-area structured surfaces cost-effectively on high thermal conductivity substrates to fulfill both fluid mechanics and thermal requirements (¶ 4), which is related to the same problem Applicants are trying to solve. Schuman solves the problem of providing thermal equalization (¶ 3-5), which is related to the same problem Applicants are trying to solve. As such, both Yang et al. and Schuman are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Applicants were faced and would have commended themselves to Applicants’ attention in considering the problem.
Therefore, both Yang et al. and Schuman are analogous art available for use under § 103 both because they are within the field of Applicants’ endeavor; and, because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Applicants were faced.
Regarding independent claim 1, the elements of the rejections of claim 1 above over Schuman under 35 U.S.C. 102 above are repeated herein in their entirety. Schuman provides the same materials as Applicants when making a heat pipe for a fixing device in an image forming apparatus, which naturally oxidize before and during their intended use. Schuman provides the heat pipe to promote longitudinal thermal equalization, ¶ 3-5, through the use of capillary action in the heat pipe, ¶ 17. However, Schuman does not intentionally provide an oxidation treatment of the various materials prior to use.
Yang et al. teach that the wicking nanostructures can be formed through chemical oxidation of copper (¶ 102), a thermal process. Such a process offers “a low parasitic conduction thermal resistance due to thinness and the relatively high thermal conductivity of copper oxides,” ¶ 105.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to intentionally provide an oxidation treatment to the materials of Schuman’s heat pipe for a fixing device in an image forming apparatus. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to provide a low parasitic conduction thermal resistance due to thinness and the relatively high thermal conductivity of copper oxides.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, Examiner incorporates the elements of the rejections over Schuman under 35 U.S.C. 102 above as applied to the combination with Yang et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
A) merely changing “section” to “unit” recites “sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function”;
B) a thermally generated oxide layer is different from the claimed structure;
C) Zhu undertakes an additional step of removing the oxide layer it generates;
D) an irreversible corrosion process does not relate to an oxide film, and therefore Shuman does not teach the claimed structure;
E) the unclaimed intended use of the disclosed invention to suppress a decrease in thermal conduction and to prevent oxidation should be read into the claimed invention.
Merely changing “section” to “unit” does not recite “sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function” so as to remove the above limitations from the purview of 112(f). Applicants consider the test as whether the limitations “include structure features”. The test was provided in the Office Action, dated 12/4/25, at pages 2-3, with notice of what Applicants had to do to adequately traverse the finding at page 4. Applicant has failed to distinguish how a “unit” can perform the function that a “section” could not.
A claim to a product is directed to the structure of the product. There are no method claims in the present application. Should Applicants disclosed process impart structural limitations, Applicants are invited to claim such structure. A thermally generated oxide layer has the same claimed structure as any other oxide layer, because the claims provide no distinguishing structural features.
Although Zhu undertakes additional steps, as Applicants admit, Remarks at page 10, the additional step of S102 is required to deviate from the claimed structure. Nonetheless, Zhu describes the prior steps as a “conventional process”, the product of such process reading on the claimed structural features.
The claimed structure makes no distinction between irreversible processes and reversible processes. Nor have Applicants provided any evidence that their process is in fact reversible.
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. Moreover, 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). Applicants’ intended uses are noted. However, the claims are drawn only to structural elements which the prior art teaches. Should Applicants disclosed process impart structural limitations, Applicants are invited to claim such structure.
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 SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights