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 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,823,640 Pytlewski.
Regarding claim 1, Pytlewski teaches a multi-dimensional geometric spacer (column 1, lines 7-10) comprising:
a body defined by opposed surfaces that have a same shape that are spaced apart by a predetermined thickness (figure 5), each of the opposed surfaces has a geometric shape with a periphery that includes eight edges (figures 5-8);
wherein opposing ones of edges that are spaced apart by three intervening edges have a length (figure 5), and
each of the edges is connected to the adjacent ones of the edges at an exterior angle of less than 90 degrees (figure 5, straight portion connected to rounded corners),
a body portion extends between the opposed surfaces and has a same geometric shape as the geometric shape of the opposed surfaces (figure 5), and
a plurality of through-holes extend through the body portion between the opposed surfaces (figure 5).
Pytlewski teaches that the opposing edges have the same length (figure 5). However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed dimensions do not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 6, Pytlewski teaches that the multiple through holes vary in size (figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Pytlewski teaches that the body portion that extends between the opposed surfaces has at least one surface (side surface) that includes a first portion that extends at a first angle (straight portion of one leg) for a defined distance and connects with a second portion (curved end of same leg) that extends at a second angle (figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the different length edges. However, as Applicant has not shown this feature to be critical, it does not impart patentable weight as discussed above.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach eight edges. However, this is taught in figure 5, for example. Additionally, the rounded interior and exterior corner show that there are no right angles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
