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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/08/2026:
claims 1, 3-9 and 11-13 are currently pending;
claims 6-9 and 11-13 are withdrawn;
the objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the same; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment that replaced the transitional phrase “comprising” with “consisting of” in independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 3-5 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.
The amendment in claim 1 lines 8 and 10, specifically “b = 0.1 to 0.36” and “e = 0.027 to 0.05” are not supported by the specification and drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Specification at [0008]-[0016] discloses the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
109
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
369
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specification at [0010] discloses “b = 0.1 to 0.4” and specification at [0012] discloses “e = 0.01 to 0.05” but does not explicitly disclose the recited “b = 0.1 to 0.36” and “e = 0.027 to 0.05”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “written”, but suggests amending the claim or respond where in the specification the recitations are supported.
Claims 3-5 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1.
Specifically, it is noted that Li et al. (CN 106542792 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Li” hereinafter) in view of Xue et al. (CN 113943137 A, with reference to US 2023/0167026 A1, as the translation) (“Xue” hereinafter) and Bichler et al. (US 2017/0320778 A1) (“Bichler” hereinafter) teach most of the limitations of independent claim 1 as outlined in the previous office action dated 02/11/2026.
However, Applicant amended the transitional phrase in claim 1 from “comprising” to “consisting of”. Li teaches the similar simulation material further comprises talc powder and cement (see Li at [0008]-[0009]), which are unrecited elements of the claimed recitations. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Li and/or Li in view of Xue and Bichler as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1 is considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments that replaced the transitional phrase “comprising” with “consisting of” in independent claim 1 has obviated the rejection based on the teachings of Li in view of Xue and Bichler. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
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 MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights