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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed December 15, 2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 12, and 22 have been cancelled. Claims 23 and 24 are newly added. Claims 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects the at least a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 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.
Regarding claim 3, ll. 12-15, the phrase “a portion of the first resilient member is directly over the first shelf such that a third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects the at least a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface” renders new matter as the originally filed disclosure is silent on this feature. Furthermore, the Examiner notes an axis is continuous. Applicant is suggested to cancel any new matter in order to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 13, ll. 12-14, the phrase “a third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface” renders new matter as the originally filed disclosure is silent on this feature. Furthermore, the Examiner notes an axis is continuous. Applicant is suggested to cancel any new matter in order to overcome this rejection.
Claims 4-11, 14-21, 23, and 24 are rejected on being dependent to a rejected base claim.
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 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 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.
Regarding claim 3, ll. 12-15, the phrase “a portion of the first resilient member is directly over the first shelf such that a third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects the at least a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface” is confusing. It is unclear how a portion of the first resilient member is directly over the first shelf such that a third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects the at least a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface. The Examiner notes that the void stated by applicant previously is element 111, see drawings. Furthermore, the Examiner notes an axis is continuous. Amendment and clarification are required.
Regarding claim 13, ll. 12-14, the phrase “a third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface” is confusing. It is unclear how a third axis, which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate, intersects a portion of the first resilient member, the first shelf, the first void, and the outer inferior second surface but not the outer superior first surface. The Examiner notes that the void stated by applicant previously is element 111, see drawings. Furthermore, the Examiner notes an axis is continuous. Amendment and clarification are required.
Examiner’s Note
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.
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 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) 3-6, 8, 9, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perrow et al. (US 2012/0065690), herein referred to as Perrow.
Regarding claim 3, Perrow discloses an orthopedic fusion system (610) (figures 22-26) comprising a plate (612) that includes: (a) a first aperture (618) (figures 22-24), (b) a first resilient member (614), (c) a first shelf (considered where element 614 is retained, see figure 22 below) that directly interfaces the first aperture (618), (d) an outer superior first surface (see figure 22 below) and an outer inferior second surface (see figure 22 below) that opposes the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 below), and (e) a first void (620) that directly interfaces each of the first aperture (618), the first shelf (considered where element 614 is retained, see figure 22 below), and the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 below), (f) a lateral sidewall (see figure 22 below) that directly couples the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 below) to the outer inferior second surface (see figure 22 below) and which does not contact the first void (620) (see figure 22 below), and a screw (616) including a lip (102) (figures 12 and 22), threads (see figure 22 below), and a shoulder (96) (figure 13A) between the lip (figure 13A) and the threads (see figure 22 below), wherein: a first axis (considered as a longitudinal axis) defines a length of the plate (612), a second axis (considered as another axis extending across from the longitudinal axis) is orthogonal to the first axis (considered as a longitudinal axis) and intersects the first aperture (618), a portion of the first resilient member (614) is directly over the first shelf (see figure 22 below) such that a third axis (considered as a third axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, see figure 22 below), which is orthogonal to the first axis (considered as a longitudinal axis) of the plate (612), intersects the portion of the first resilient member (614), the first shelf (see figure 22 below), the first void (620), and the outer inferior second surface (see figure 22 below) but not the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 below), the first resilient member (614) projects into the first aperture (618) and towards a center of the first aperture (618) (see figure 22 below), in a partially implanted position the screw (616) is included in the first aperture (616) and the shoulder (96) (figure 13A) actively deflects (¶7) the portion of the first resilient member (614) away from the center of the first aperture (618) (¶7), in a fully implanted position (see figure 22 below) the screw (616) is included in the first aperture (618) and the first resilient member (614) prevents the screw (616) from backing out (¶7) of the first aperture (618) based on the portion of the first resilient member (614) having snapped back (¶7) towards the center of the first aperture (618) to intercept the lip (see figure 22 below), a first plane intersects the plate (612), the first shelf (see figure 22 below), the portion of the first resilient member (614), the first void (620), and the third axis (see figure 22 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Perrow discloses wherein the first resilient member (614) is separably coupled to the plate (612) (figures 22-26).
Regarding claim 5, Perrow discloses wherein the plate (612) includes: (a) a second aperture (another element 618) (see figure 22 above), (b) a second resilient member (another element 614) (¶7), (c) a second shelf (see figure 22 above) that directly interfaces the second aperture (another element 618) (see figure 22 above), (d) a second void (another element 622) (see figure 22 above) that directly interfaces each of the second aperture (another element 618), the second shelf (see figure 22 above), and the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above), and a second plane (figure 22) intersects the plate (612) and is between the first and second apertures (elements 618) but does not interface either of the first or second apertures (figure 22), the third axis (see figure 22 above) is parallel to the second plane (figure 22).
Regarding claim 6, Perrow discloses wherein the first resilient member (614) includes an arm (651 or 653) (figure 25) that extends from a base (644) of the first resilient member (614) towards a first end of the plate (612) (figure 22), the second resilient member (another element 614) (¶7) includes an arm (another element 651 or 653) (figure 25) that extends from a base (another element 644) of the second resilient member (another element 614) (¶7) towards a second end of the plate (612) that is opposite of the first end of the plate (612) (figure 22).
Regarding claim 8, Perrow discloses wherein the plate includes first and second lateral plate portions (see figure 22 above) and a middle plate portion (see figure 22 above), the first lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) is lateral to the first aperture (618) and the second lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) is lateral to the second aperture (another element 618), the middle plate portion (considered as a middle portion of element 612) is between the first and second apertures (elements 618), a third plane (figure 22) intersects: (a) the first lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) along a first distance on the outer superior first surface of the plate (612), the first distance extending laterally from the first aperture (618) to a first edge of the lateral sidewall (see figure 22 above), (b) the second lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) along a second distance on the outer superior first surface of the plate (612), the second distance extending laterally from the second aperture (another element 618) to a second lateral edge of the lateral sidewall (see figure 22 above), and (c) the middle plate portion (considered as a middle portion of element 612) along a third distance on the outer superior first surface of the plate (618), the third distance extending from a first medial portion of the first aperture (618) to a second medial portion of the second aperture (another element 618), and a sum of the first and second distances is no greater than the third distance (figure 22).
Regarding claim 9, Perrow discloses wherein the plate includes: third (see figure 22 above), fourth (see figure 22 above), fifth (see figure 22 above), and sixth apertures (see figure 22 above), third, fourth, fifth, and sixth shelves (see figure 22 above), wherein: the third shelf (see figure 22 above) directly interfaces the third aperture (see figure 22 above), the fourth shelf (see figure 22 above) directly interfaces the fourth aperture (see figure 22 above), the fifth shelf (see figure 22 above) directly interfaces the fifth aperture (see figure 22 above), and the sixth shelf (see figure 22 above) directly interfaces the sixth aperture (see figure 22 above), and third, fourth, fifth, and sixth resilient members (elements 614) that, respectively, are directly over the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth shelves (see figure 22 above).
Regarding claim 13, Perrow discloses an orthopedic fusion system (610) (figures 22-26) comprising a plate (612) that includes: (a) a first aperture (618), (b) a first resilient member (614), (c) a first shelf (considered where element 614 is retained, see figure 22 below) that directly interfaces the first aperture (618), (d) an outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above) and an outer inferior second surface (see figure 22 above) that opposes the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above), and (e) a first void (620) that directly interfaces each of the first aperture (618), the first shelf (see figure 22 above), and the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above), (f) a lateral sidewall (see figure 22 above) that directly couples the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above) to the outer inferior second surface (see figure 22 above) and which does not contact the first void (620) (see figure 22 above), and a screw (616) including a lip (102) (figures 12 and 22), threads (see figure 22 above), and a shoulder (96) (figure 13A) between the lip (figure 13A) and the threads (see figure 22 above), wherein: a first axis (considered as a longitudinal axis) defines a length of the plate (612), a second axis (considered as another axis extending across from the longitudinal axis) is orthogonal to the first axis (considered as a longitudinal axis) and intersects the first aperture (618) (see figure 22 above), a third axis (considered as a third axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, see figure 22 above), which is orthogonal to the first axis of the plate (612) (see figure 22 above), intersects a portion of the first resilient member (614), the first shelf (see figure 22 above), the first void (620), and the outer inferior second surface (see figure 22 above) but not the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above), in a partially implanted position the screw (616) is included in the first aperture (618) and the shoulder (96) (figure 13A) actively deflects (¶7) the portion of the first resilient member (614) away from a center of the first aperture (618) (¶7), in a fully implanted position (see figure 22 above) the screw (616) is included in the first aperture (618) and the first resilient member (614) prevents the screw (616) from backing out (¶7) of the first aperture (618) based on the portion of the first resilient member (614) having snapped back (¶7) towards the center of the first aperture (618) to intercept the lip (see figure 22 above), a first plane intersects the plate (612) (see figure 22 above), the first shelf (see figure 22 above), the portion of the first resilient member (614), the first void (620), and the third axis (see figure 22 above).
Regarding claim 14, Perrow discloses wherein the first resilient member (614) is non-separably coupled to the plate (612) (figure 22).
Regarding claim 15, Perrow discloses wherein the plate (612) includes: (a) a second aperture (another element 618) (see figure 22 above), (b) a second resilient member (another element 614) (¶7), (c) a second shelf (see figure 22 above) that directly interfaces the second aperture (another element 618) (see figure 22 above), (d) a second void (another element 622) (see figure 22 above) that directly interfaces each of the second aperture (another element 618), the second shelf (see figure 22 above), and the outer superior first surface (see figure 22 above), and a second plane (figure 22) intersects the plate (612) and is between the first and second apertures (elements 618) but does not interface either of the first or second apertures (figure 22), the third axis (see figure 22 above) is parallel to the second plane (figure 22).
Regarding claim 16, Perrow discloses wherein the first resilient member (614) includes an arm (651 or 653) (figure 25) that extends from a base (644) of the first resilient member (614) towards a first end of the plate (612) (figure 22), the second resilient member (another element 614) (¶7) includes an arm (another element 651 or 653) (figure 25) that extends from a base (another element 644) of the second resilient member (another element 614) (¶7) towards a second end of the plate (612) that is opposite of the first end of the plate (612) (figure 22).
Regarding claim 17, Perrow discloses wherein the portion of the first resilient member (614) is arranged to move back and forth (¶7) over the first shelf (see figure 22 above), the portion of the first resilient member (614) is at least partially included in the first void (620) (figures 22 and 24).
Regarding claim 18, Perrow discloses wherein the plate includes first and second lateral plate portions (see figure 22 above) and a middle plate portion (see figure 22 above), the first lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) is lateral to the first aperture (618) and the second lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) is lateral to the second aperture (another element 618), the middle plate portion (considered as a middle portion of element 612) is between the first and second apertures (elements 618), a third plane (figure 22) intersects: (a) the first lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) along a first distance on the outer superior first surface of the plate (612), the first distance extending laterally from the first aperture (618) to a first edge of the lateral sidewall (see figure 22 above), (b) the second lateral plate portion (see figure 22 above) along a second distance on the outer superior first surface of the plate (612), the second distance extending laterally from the second aperture (another element 618) to a second lateral edge of the lateral sidewall (see figure 22 above), and (c) the middle plate portion (considered as a middle portion of element 612) along a third distance on the outer superior first surface of the plate (618), the third distance extending from a first medial portion of the first aperture (618) to a second medial portion of the second aperture (another element 618), and a sum of the first and second distances is no greater than the third distance (figure 22).
Regarding claim 19, Perrow discloses wherein the plate (612) includes: third and fourth apertures (see figure 22 above), third and fourth shelves (see figure 22 above), wherein: the third shelf (see figure 22 above) directly interfaces the third aperture (see figure 22 above) and the fourth shelf (see figure 22 above) directly interfaces the fourth aperture (see figure 22 above), and third and fourth resilient members (elements 614) that, respectively, are directly over the third and fourth shelves (see figure 22 above).
Regarding claim 20, Perrow discloses wherein the plate includes fifth and sixth apertures (see figure 22 above), a fourth axis (see figure 22 above) intersects the fifth and sixth apertures (see figure 22 above) but none of the first, second, third, or fourth apertures (see figure 22 above).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrow (US 2012/0065690).
Regarding claims 7, 23, 24, Perrow’s system discloses all the features/elements as claimed including wherein the portion of the first resilient member (614) is arranged to slide back and forth (¶7) over the first shelf (see figure 22 above), at least partially included in the first void (620) (figures 22 and 24) but lacks a detailed description on circular in cross-section and no more than 11 mm in diameter.
However, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and it is known that discovering an optimum value involves routine experimentation in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrow’s system having the first resilient member being circular in cross-section and no more than 11 mm in diameter, since such a modification is considered a change in shape generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and it is known that discovering an optimum value involves routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Perrow’s system discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks the plate includes seventh and eighth apertures, a fourth axis intersects the seventh and eighth apertures but none of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth apertures.
However, it is known that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrow’s system with the plate includes seventh and eighth apertures, a fourth axis intersects the seventh and eighth apertures but none of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth apertures, since it is known that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,701,151. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the application claims and the USP claims lies in the fact that the USP claims includes more elements and are thus, more specific. Thus, the USP is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application’s claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”.
Claims 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,849,662. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the application claims and the USP claims lies in the fact that the USP claims includes more elements and are thus, more specific. Thus, the USP is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application’s claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”.
Claims 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,084. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the USP claims includes more elements and are thus, more specific. Thus, the USP is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application’s claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”.
Claims 3-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,913,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the application claims and the USP claims lies in the fact that the USP claims includes more elements and are thus, more specific. Thus, the USP is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application’s claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 9, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), of the Remarks are directed to amended claim 3. However, it does not appear claim 3 overcomes the prior art, see Office Action above.
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 SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-6pm.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. 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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775