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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the parts labeled A cannot be considered apex and the part labeled B cannot also be considered apex because an apex is the peak or top. A valley is not an apex. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a valley and a peak cannot be both considered apices. A valley does not have an apex.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 18-19 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 is indefinite because in the limitation “the ridge part is defined as a first region of the ridge in the cross-section bounded by (i) a second imaginary straight line segment directly connecting two first apices that define two first valleys adjacent to the ridge part and (ii) a ridge part apex of the ridge part, the adjacent ridge part is defined as a second region of the ridge in the cross- section bounded by (i) a third imaginary straight line segment directly connecting two second apices that define two second valleys adjacent to the adjacent ridge part and (ii) an adjacent ridge part apex of the adjacent ridge part,” it is unclear how the valleys have apices. Apices (plural apex) is defined as the highest points, tips or vertices of multiple objects. A valley, by definition, is a low-lying depression. A valley cannot have an apex. Therefore, it is unclear how the valleys of the claim can have apices. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 1 is indefinite because in the limitation “the ridge part is defined as a first region of the ridge in the cross-section bounded by (i) a second imaginary straight line segment directly connecting two first apices that define two first valleys adjacent to the ridge part and (ii) a ridge part apex of the ridge part, the adjacent ridge part is defined as a second region of the ridge in the cross- section bounded by (i) a third imaginary straight line segment directly connecting two second apices that define two second valleys adjacent to the adjacent ridge part and (ii) an adjacent ridge part apex of the adjacent ridge part” is unclear. How are there first two valleys and two second valleys if the ridges are adjacent. There would a first valley and a second valley and then the second valley and a third valley. There aren’t four valleys (first two valleys and two second valleys) unless the ridge parts are not directly adjacent. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a first ridge part and a second ridge part” with the difference between the pitches are referring to the first ridge part and the adjacent ridge part or if these are different ridge parts. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “an area of the adjacent valley part is defined using a first imaginary straight-line segment directly connecting apices that define the adjacent valley part and a valley bottom of the adjacent valley part”. Are the apices referring to the first and second apex previously claimed? Are these apices between two different apices? A valley does not have an apex, so it is unclear what these apices are referring to. This limitation is confusing and the Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-10, 18-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided 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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights