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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to Applicant's claim amendment(s), Examiner notes that none of the cited paragraphs describe the newly added limitation “a removal component configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position”. Applicant’s specification fails to explicitly mention “a removal component”. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the newly added limitation based on Applicant’s annotated Fig. 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s annotated Fig. 15 fails to show or describe the annotated removal component. What is the structure of the removal component in annotated Fig. 15? Applicant’s annotated removal component seems to be pointing to component 32 which is described as a build zone 32 ([0041] of Applicant’s published application). For purposes of compact prosecution, the newly added limitation has been interpreted below in view of [0103] and [0138] of Applicant’s published application.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant argues that Examiner narrowly limited the corresponding structure of the “radiant energy device” to the corresponding structure only in [0053] and omitted the corresponding structure in [0038].
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive in view of the following quotes set forth in the interpretation: “the corresponding structure disclosed in at least [0053] of Applicant’s published publication” and “the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof”. Furthermore, the alleged corresponding structures (types of radiant energy) described in [0038] are incapable of generating and projecting radiant energy in a patterned image by themselves, encompass any radiant energy, and require additional structure in [0053] to perform the claimed functions. Last but not least, Examiner includes [0038] in the claim interpretation set forth below.
Applicant also argues that Examiner narrowly limited the corresponding structure of the “resin support” to the corresponding structure only in [00042] and omitted the corresponding structure in [0033] and [0040].
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive in view of the following quotes set forth in the interpretation: “the corresponding structure disclosed in at least [00042]” and “the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof”. Last but not least, Examiner includes [0033] and [0040] in the claim interpretation set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). However, Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) introduced new 112(b) rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under § 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “separate the at least one of the stage or the component” should be changed to -- separate at least one of the stage or the component--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
“radiant energy device … operable to generate and project radiant energy in a patterned image” in at least claim 1 with a projector, digital micromirror device, a two-dimensional array of LEDs, a two-dimensional array of lasers, and/or energy source with optically addressed light valves as the corresponding structure disclosed in at least [0038] and [0053] of Applicant’s published publication.
“a resin support configured to” in at least claim(s) 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0033], [0040], and [0043], and Figs. 1A-B of Applicant’s published application.
“removal component configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position” in at least claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0103] and [0138] of Applicant’s published application.
“material depositor configured” in at least claim(s) 5-7 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0042] of Applicant’s published application.
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.
Other claim interpretations:
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 21 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). Thus, the terms “resin”, “first resin” and “cleaning resin” are the materials worked upon by the apparatus.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9 and 21 is/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 1 recites the limitation “wherein each cured layer is formed with the stage or the component contacting the resin in a first cure position” which is indefinite because the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A first cured layer is formed with the stage contacting the resin in a first curing position ([0081-0082] and Figs. 5-6 of Applicant’s published application) and a second/subsequent cured layer is formed with the component contacting the resin in a second curing position ([0085-0086] and Figs. 9-10 of Applicant’s published application). Thus, the limitation has been examined below as if it read --wherein a cured layer is formed with the stage or the component contacting the resin in a first cure position--.
Claim 1 recites “separate the at least one of the stage or the component from the resin support by moving the stage in the Z-axis direction from the first cure position to a removal position” which is indefinite because the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. The stage is never separated from the resin support because the stage is never in contact with the resin support ([0082-0083] and Figs. 7-8 and Figs. 14-15 of Applicant’s published application). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --separate the component (cured layer(s)) from the resin support by moving the stage in the Z-axis direction from the first cure position to a removal position--.
Claim 1 recites “a second cure position such that the component contacts the resin” which is indefinite. The scope of the “second cure position” is unclear in view of the limitation “wherein each cured layer is formed with the stage or the component contacting the resin in first cure position” previously recited. The limitation has been examined below as if the second cure position is a position of the stage in which a next cured layer is formed with the component (first cured layer) contacting the resin.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 4 recites “the vibration module is activatable when the stage is in the removal position” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the vibration module of claim 4 is same or different from the “removal component configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position” in claim 1. According to Examiner’s interpretation of [0103] and [0138] of Applicant’s published application, the vibration module is the removal component. Thus, the limitation has been examined below as if it read --the removal component comprises the vibration module which is activatable when the stage is in the removal position--.
Claim 6 recites “the resin includes a first resin for forming the component and a cleaning resin for cleaning the component” which is indefinite. It is unclear how the types of resins add structure to the claimed apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claimed language what structure is encompassed by the claim. It is unclear what structure in the apparatus provides the first resin and the cleaning resin. It is unclear how the apparatus operates when using the two types of resins. For instance, it is unclear how curing of the first resin is achieved if the cleaning resin is present in the apparatus at all times as claimed in claim 1. Examiner further notes that the first resin and cleaning resin are the materials worked upon by the apparatus. Thus, the recitation has been examined below as an intended use recitation.
Claim 7 recites “the resin includes a first resin and a cleaning resin” which is indefinite. Examiner notes that the first resin and cleaning resin are the materials worked upon by the apparatus. Thus, it is unclear how the types of resins add structure to the claimed material depositor. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claimed language what structure is encompassed by the limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the first resin is translated into a build zone to form one or more cured layers of the component and the cleaning resin is translated into the build zone for a removal operation” which state achieved results/operations without providing a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claimed language the structure encompassed by the claim. It is unclear what structure of the apparatus translates the first resin as claimed. It is unclear what structure of the apparatus translates the cleaning resin as claimed. No structure in the claimed apparatus is currently configured for or capable of translating the resins. Thus, claim 7 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot reasonably apprised the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claim 7 and the prior art due to the 112(b) issues explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lenzen (US 20220332046).
Regarding claim 1, Lenzen discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, P0001, Figure 1) comprising:
a resin support (3) configured to support a resin (P0070-0071, Fig. 1; wherein the raw material supported by 3 can be a photopolymerizable binder/resin: P0018; furthermore, 3 of Lenzen is capable of supporting a resin: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115);
a support plate (6) including a window (P0073-0074, Fig. 1; See [0038] of Applicant’s published application);
a stage (build plate 9) configured to hold one or more cured layers of the resin to form a component (P0076, Fig. 1), wherein a cured layer is formed with the stage or the component contacting the resin in a first cure position (a first cured layer is formed with 9 contacting the resin in a first cure position/height: P0080-0082; 9 at the first cure position/height shown in Fig. 2C);
a radiant energy device (7) positioned on an opposite side of the resin support from the stage and operable to generate and project radiant energy in a patterned image through the window (P0074 and Fig. 1); and
an actuator assembly (10) operably coupled with the stage (9) and configured to:
to move the stage in a Z-axis direction (P0076, Fig. 1);
separate the component (8) from the resin support (3) by moving the stage in the Z-axis direction from the first cure position to a removal position (P0082, 0085; Fig. 2E shows 9 at a removal position); and
move the stage from the removal position to a second cure position such that the component contacts the resin (10 is configured for moving 9 from removal position shown in Fig. 2E to a second cure position/height shown in Fig. 2F: P0087-0088, 0081; Fig. 2F shows 9 at the second cure position/height such that the component 8 contacts the resin); and
a removal component (cleaning device 11) configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position (P0077, 0085, Fig. 2E). Thus, Lenzen discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 5, Lenzen further discloses a material depositor (2a) configured to deposit the resin on the resin support (P0080, Fig. 1, Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Lenzen further discloses wherein the resin includes a first resin for forming the component (P0081-0082). Lenzen fails to explicitly disclose a cleaning resin for cleaning the component. However, the cleaning resin is the material worked upon by the apparatus. Additionally, since the apparatus of Lenzen is configured for dispensing multiple materials/resins (P0087, Fig. 1), the apparatus of Lenzen is expected to be capable of providing/dispensing a cleaning resin as one of the materials/resins. Furthermore, since the apparatus of Lenzen comprises all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Lenzen is expected to be capable of providing/dispensing a cleaning resin (See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115). Lat but not least, since Lenzen discloses cleaning of the component (P0077, 0085), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lenzen by using a cleaning resin during/for the cleaning of the component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 20190126535 – of record) and/or Arai (US 20180065302 – of record).
Regarding claim 4, Lenzen fails to disclose a vibration module operably coupled with the support plate.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Thompson ‘535 discloses/suggests the techniques of vibrating a support plate 12 (P0034, Fig. 1) and using ultrasonic transducer(s) 394 (vibration module) coupled with a support (391), wherein the ultrasonic transducer(s) (vibration module) is activatable when a stage (14) is in a removal position during a removal/cleaning operation for removing/cleaning residual resin for the component (74: P0066. Fig. 13).
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Arai discloses the technique of coupling a vibration module (212) to a support plate (206), wherein the vibration module (212) is activatable when a stage (203) is in a removal position during removal of uncured resin from a component and/or build zone (P0244, Fig. 10).
Office notice is taken that the provision and activation of a vibration module during a removal/cleaning operation of uncured resin is well-known/desirable in art yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating removal/cleaning of uncured resin.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Thompson ‘535 and/or Arai by operably coupling a vibration module to the support plate and activating the vibration module when the stage is in the removal position for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating and/or enhancing removal/cleaning of the residual resin though the vibrations as suggested by Thompson ‘535 and/or Arai.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boehm (US 20210276248).
Regarding claim 8, Lenzen fails to disclose wherein the radiant energy device is configured to at least partially cure a portion of the resin on the resin support with the component separated from the resin.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Boehm discloses the technique of irradiating and curing a residual portion of the resin on a resin support (carrier 20) in a state where the component (100) is separated from the resin for the benefit(s) of facilitating disposal of the residual resin (P0057-0059, 0082-0084, claim 7, Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to cure at least portion of the uncured resin on the resin support in the build zone after the component is separated from the uncured resin on the resin support in the build zone for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating disposal of the excess/residual resin as uncured/liquid resin is more difficult to clean than cured/solid resin and/or enhancing disposal of the excess/residual resin as uncured resin is more hazardous/unsafe waste than cured/solid resin.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Boehm by configuring the radiant energy device to at least partially cure a portion of the resin on the resin support with the component separated from the resin for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating curing and disposal of the excess/residual portion as uncured/liquid resin is more difficult to clean than cured/solid resin and/or enhancing disposal of the excess/residual resin as uncured resin is more hazardous/unsafe waste than cured/solid resin as suggested by Boehm and/or predicated by a POSITA.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen in view of Boehm as applied to claim 8 above, alone or further in view of Sands (US 20180056604).
Regarding claim 9, the combination as applied above, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the radiant energy device is operable to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image through the window to at least partially cure the portion of the resin, wherein the mirrored image is an inverse of the patterned image.
However, since Boehm further discloses/shows that the residual portion (400’) defines a mirror image which is an inverse of the patterned image (P0084-0086, 0093, annotated Fig. 2 below) and curing the residual portion on the resin support for the benefit(s) of facilitating disposal/removal of the residual portion from the resin support (P0058-0059, claim 7), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of the combination by configuring the radiant energy device to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image through the window to at least partially cure the portion of the resin, wherein the mirrored image is an inverse of the patterned image for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of facilitating/enhancing curing of the residual portion with the radiant energy device and facilitating/enhancing disposal/removal of the residual portion from the resin support as suggested by Boehm.
PNG
media_image2.png
217
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Sands discloses the technique of operating a radiant energy device (20: Fig. 1) to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image (46) to at least partially cure the portion of resin, wherein the mirrored image (46) is an inverse of a patterned image (44) for the benefit(s) of improving curing and/or fidelity (P0026-0031, 0034-0035, Fig. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Sands by operating the radiant energy device to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image to at least partially cure the portion of resin, wherein the mirrored image is an inverse of a patterned image for the benefit(s) of improving curing and/or fidelity as suggested by Sands.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen in view of Thompson and/or Arai as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schultheiss (US 20170297261) and/or Hundley (US 20180341184).
Regarding claim 21, Lenzen, as modified in claim 4 above, fails to disclose a gasket positioned between the window and the support plate, the gasket comprising a material containing natural rubber or silicone.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Schultheiss discloses the technique of positioning a gasket (sealing ring 70) between a window (36) and a support plate (62) for the benefit(s) of providing a sealing effect (P0039-0040, 0109, Figs. 3-4). Schultheiss fails to disclose the gasket comprising a material containing natural rubber or silicone. However, Office notice is taken that the natural rubber or silicone is a well-known suitable material for gaskets in view of its sealing and attenuating properties.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Hundley discloses the technique of positioning a gasket (boundary seal 13) between a window (12) and a support plate (3: Fig. 5), the gasket comprising a material containing silicone for the benefit(s) of providing/improving a sealing effect (P0076, 0035, Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Schultheiss and/or Hundley by positioning a gasket between the window and the support plate, the gasket comprising a material containing natural rubber or silicone for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of providing/improving a sealing effect between the window and the support plate as suggested by Schultheiss and/or Hundley.
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.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Hull (US 20080226346) discloses an apparatus relevant to at least claim 1 (Fig. 1a and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 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 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743