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 § 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 1-16 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 1, the term "substantially" in lines 2 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Claims 2-8 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 1. Claims 13-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their incorporation of subject matter from claim 1 via claim 6.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 3, the term "substantially" in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 4, the term "substantially" in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Claim 7 inherits the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on its dependency on claim 4.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 5, the term "substantially" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 6, the term "substantially" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Claims 13-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their incorporation of subject matter from claim 6.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 7, the term "substantially" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 9, the term "substantially" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Claims 9-12 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 9.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 11, the term "substantially" in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 12, the term "substantially" in lines 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 13, the term "substantially" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Claims 14-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 13.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 14, the term "substantially" in lines 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Regarding claim 16, the term "substantially" in lines 3 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term substantial is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Examiner notes Applicant has attempted to define “substantially” in the Specification in one specific case as within ±20% with respect to a specific value, or within ±10% with respect to a specific value, or within ±5% with respect to a specific value, or within ±2% or less with respect to a specific value ([0055]). However, it is unclear to the examiner, in which “specific case” the term “substantially” is intended to defined as such. Also, it is unclear to the examiner what is specifically encompassed by the term “substantially” in other cases different from the aforementioned “one specific case.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art or other references made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (“Nanoscale optical imaging of multi-junction MoS2-WS2 lateral heterojunction”, 2017);
Ambardar et al. (“Quantum plasmonic two-dimensional WS2-MoS2 heterojunction”, 2023).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights