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
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/31/2025.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment of claims 1 and 8; and the cancellation of claim 6.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites limitations “a metal as well as the metal in a non-fluoride form, the metal…being one of magnesium, germanium, silicon…” which should be replaced with “a metallic material as well as the metallic material in a non-fluoride form the metallic material… being one of magnesium, germanium, silicon…”, in accordance with the specification (e.g., germanium and silicon are commonly known as a metalloid materials having metallic appearance but not metal; and the metalloid materials have physical and chemical properties between metallic and nonmetallic elements).
Claim 8 (claims 17 and 19) recites limitations “the metal” which should be replaced with “the metallic material”, in accordance with the specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites “the first element is silicon”, and claim 1 requires “an intermediate layer…comprising a fluoride of a metal as well as the metal in a non-fluoride form, the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than that of the first element and being one of magnesium, germanium, silicon, manganese, tungsten, cobalt, nickel, copper, ruthenium, palladium, and platinum”. However, the recites metallic materials magnesium, germanium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, copper, ruthenium, palladium, and platinum do not have an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than that of silicon, and only tungsten has an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than that of silicon. Further, a fluoride of tungsten (e.g., WF6) is known as a gas. Therefore, it is unclear which particular metallic material comprising a fluoride of a metal as well as the metal in a non-fluoride form, and having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than silicon applicant is referring to. The Specification does not resolve ambiguity of the claim and that renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites “the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine greater than that of the first element is titanium”. However, claim 1 requires “the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than that of the first element and being one of magnesium, germanium, silicon, manganese, tungsten, cobalt, nickel, copper, ruthenium, palladium, and platinum” which does not include titanium. Thus, claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,608,168 to Chae (cited in IDS of 07/10/2024) in view of Scheible et al. (US 2005/0286827, hereinafter Scheible), Hachiya et al. (US 2006/0232196, hereinafter Hachiya), and Bhat et al. (US Patent No. 6,630,689, hereinafter Bhat).
With respect to Claim 1, Chae discloses a light emitting device (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 1, lines 15-20; Col. 2, lines 55-67; Col. 3, lines 1-67; Col. 4, lines 1-15; Cols. 5-7) comprising:
a semiconductor diode structure (e.g., 121/123/125, including n-type GaN layer 121 and p-type GaN layer 125) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 5, lines 29-41) including a light emitting layer (123); and
a reflective layer (e.g., 150b/150a) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 51-59) disposed on a surface of the semiconductor diode structure (121/123/125), the reflective layer (150b/150a) comprising:
a dielectric layer (e.g., the multilayer insulating layer 140 including a distributed Bragg reflector in which materials of different indices of refraction are alternately staked, for example, a first layer of low refractive index material MgF2, as evidenced by Scheible, ¶0021) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 21-30) disposed on and in direct contact with the semiconductor diode structure (121/123/125) and comprising a fluoride (e.g., a low refractive index material MgF2 is a fluoride of magnesium (Mg)) of a first element (e.g., Mg), and an intermediate layer (e.g., another layer of the multilayer insulating layer 140 including a distributed Bragg reflector in which materials of different indices of refraction are alternately staked) disposed on the dielectric layer (140); and
a reflective silver layer (e.g., 150b, Ag or a combination of Al and Ag) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 56-59) disposed on the intermediate layer (e.g., another layer of the multilayer insulating layer 140 including a distributed Bragg reflector).
Further, Chae does not specifically disclose an intermediate layer comprising a fluoride of a metal as well as the metal in a non-fluoride form, the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than that of the first element and being one of magnesium, germanium, silicon, manganese, tungsten, cobalt, nickel, copper, ruthenium, palladium, and platinum; and the intermediate layer being substantially transparent to light emitted by the light emitting layer.
However, Scheible teaches forming a dielectric multilayer structure (Scheible, ¶0009, ¶0021-¶0024) including low refractive index materials (e.g., MgF2) and high refractive index materials (e.g., LaF3), wherein fluoride materials for dielectric multilayer structure are preferential because of their high transparency and low material-specific absorption at various wavelength including short wavelength below 193 nm. Also, the low refractive index materials include magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), lithium fluoride, silicon dioxide (Scheible, ¶0021), or combination thereof (e.g., MgF2 and CaF2); and high refractive index materials include lanthanum fluoride (LaF3), gadolinium fluoride, titanium fluoride (TiF3), aluminum oxide, or combination of a first layer of high refractive index material and another layer of high refractive index material (Scheible, ¶0024).
Also, Hachiya teaches forming a low refractive index fluoride material including silicon (e.g., SiOF), MgF2, or CaF2 (Hachiya, Fig. 1, ¶0076-¶0078) for the multilayer insulating structure including a low refractive index material and a high refractive index material, wherein transparent fluoride film has a refractive index of 1.5 or less, to increase the reflectance of the electrode.
Further, Bhat teaches forming a dielectric stack (Bhat, Table 1, Col. 4, lines 4-67; Col. 5, lines 1-13) comprising alternating layers of low refractive index materials and high refractive index materials, wherein a refractive index of magnesium fluoride (MgF2) is 1.39, used as a low refractive index material, and a refractive index of silicon monoxide (SiO) is 1.8-1.9, used as a high refractive index material, to provide a highly reflective stack that is highly reflective to light incident of the mesa wall.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for the multilayer insulating layer structure of Chae including a low refractive index material MgF2 and SiOF, and a high refractive index material including SiO, an intermediate layer would comprise a fluoride of Si and SiO having Si in a non-fluoride form.
It is known in the art that an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine of titanium (Si) is a magnitude greater than that of magnesium (Mg).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae by forming multilayer insulating layer of Chae including a low refractive index material including MgF2 and SiOF, and a high refractive index material including SiO as taught by Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat to have an intermediate layer comprising a fluoride of a metal as well as the metal in a non-fluoride form, the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine with a magnitude greater than that of the first element and being one of silicon; and the intermediate layer being substantially transparent to light emitted by the light emitting layer, in order to provide dielectric multilayer coating having high transparency and low material-specific absorption at various wavelength including short wavelength; to provide transparent fluoride film having very low refractive index for the multilayer insulating structure to increase the reflectance of the electrode; and to provide a highly reflective stack that is highly reflective to light incident of the mesa wall (Scheible, ¶0009, ¶0021, ¶0024; Hachiya, ¶0076-¶0078; Bhat, Col. 4, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim 4, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the first element is silicon.
However, Hachiya teaches forming a low refractive index fluoride material including silicon (e.g., SiOF) (Hachiya, Fig. 1, ¶0076-¶0078) for the multilayer insulating structure including a low refractive index material and a high refractive index material, wherein transparent fluoride film has a refractive index of 1.5 or less, to increase the reflectance of the electrode.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by substituting a low refractive index fluoride material of Chae with a low refractive index fluoride material including silicon of Hachiya to have the light emitting device, wherein the first element is silicon, in order to provide transparent fluoride film having very low refractive index for the multilayer insulating structure to increase the reflectance of the electrode (Hachiya, ¶0076-¶0078).
Regarding Claim 5, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein the first element is magnesium (Mg) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 21-24).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the metal having an enthalpy with fluorine with the magnitude greater than that of the first element is one of magnesium and germanium (as claimed in claim 8); wherein the metal in the non-fluoride form is in elemental form (as claimed in claim 17).
However, Scheible teaches forming the low refractive index material including magnesium fluoride (MgF2) (Scheible, ¶0021), and the high refractive index material including aluminum oxide (Scheible, ¶0024).
Further, it is known in the art that germanium and germanium oxide are high refractive index materials.
It is known in the art that an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine of germanium is a magnitude greater than that of magnesium (Mg).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have substituted the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by substituting a high refractive index material including SiO with germanium and germanium oxide to have the light emitting device, wherein the metal having an enthalpy with fluorine with the magnitude greater than that of the first element is one of magnesium and germanium (as claimed in claim 8); wherein the metal in the non-fluoride form is in elemental form (as claimed in claim 17), in order to provide dielectric multilayer coating having high transparency and low material-specific absorption at various wavelength including short wavelength (Scheible, ¶0009, ¶0021, ¶0024).
Regarding Claim 11, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein the reflective silver or gold layer is a reflective silver layer (e.g., 150b, Ag or a combination of Al and Ag) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 56-59).
Regarding Claim 12, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the reflective silver or gold layer is a reflective gold layer. However, Chae teaches a material (e.g., Ni, Al, Ag, Au) including gold (Au) in the reflective metal layer (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 6, lines 14-19), and having a high reflectivity and capable of forming ohmic contact.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by including a specific material in the reflective layer as taught by Chae to have the light emitting device, wherein the reflective silver or gold layer is a reflective gold layer, in order to provide a material having a high reflectivity and capable of forming ohmic contact (Chae, Col. 6, lines 14-19).
Regarding Claim 14, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein the semiconductor structure (e.g., 121/123/125, including n-type GaN layer 121 and p-type GaN layer 125) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 5, lines 29-41) comprises a III-V semiconductor diode structure.
Regarding Claim 15, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein the semiconductor structure (121/123/125, including n-type GaN layer 121 and p-type GaN layer 125) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 5, lines 29-41) comprises a III-Nitride semiconductor diode structure.
Regarding Claim 18, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 17. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein the semiconductor structure (121/123/125, e.g., including GaN-based or InGaN) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 5, lines 32-41) comprises a III-V semiconductor diode structure.
Regarding Claim 19, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein: the dielectric layer (e.g., 140, an insulation material MgF2) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 21-30) comprises the fluoride of the first element (Mg), the first element being magnesium; and the reflective silver or gold layer (e.g., 150b, Ag or a combination of Al and Ag) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 7, lines 56-59) is a reflective silver layer, but does not specifically disclose that the intermediate layer comprises the fluoride of the metal; the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine greater than that of the first element is titanium.
However, Scheible teaches that fluoride materials (Scheible, ¶0009, ¶0021-¶0024) including low refractive index materials (e.g., MgF2) and high refractive index materials (e.g., LaF3 or TiF3) are preferential for constructing dielectric multilayer coating because of their high transparency and low material-specific absorption at various wavelength including short wavelength below 193 nm.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for the multilayer insulating layer structure of Chae including a low refractive index material MgF2 and high refractive index material TiF3 layer, an intermediate layer would comprise a fluoride of Ti (e.g., a metal not being aluminum nor silver) and Ti layer as a bonding layer (150a) inserted between the insulating film (140) and the metal reflective layer (150b) in a non-fluoride form.
It is known in the art that an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine of titanium (Ti) is a magnitude greater than that of magnesium (Mg).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by forming multilayer insulating layer including low refractive index materials MgF2 and high refractive index materials TiF3 as taught by Scheible to have the light emitting device, wherein the intermediate layer comprises the fluoride of the metal; the metal having an enthalpy of reaction with fluorine greater than that of the first element is titanium, in order to provide dielectric multilayer coating having high transparency and low material-specific absorption at various wavelength including short wavelength (Scheible, ¶0009, ¶0021, ¶0024).
Regarding Claim 20, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 19. Further, Chae discloses the light emitting device, wherein the semiconductor structure (e.g., 121/123/125, including n-type GaN layer 121 and p-type GaN layer 125) (Chae, Fig. 3a, Col. 5, lines 29-41) comprises a III-V semiconductor diode structure.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,608,168 to Chae in view of Scheible (US 2005/0286827), Hachiya (US 2006/0232196), and Bhat (US Patent No. 6,630,689) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2012/0299038, hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding Claim 9, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the intermediate layer has a thickness of 1 angstrom to 50 angstroms perpendicular to the dielectric layer.
However, Hwang teaches forming an insulating layer (133) (Hwang, Fig. 1, ¶0007, ¶0045-¶0062, ¶0085-¶0089) on the light emitting structure (120), wherein the insulating layer (133) includes fluoride of Ti and comprises multiple layers having a thickness in a range of 1 Angstrom to 50,000 Angstroms (Hwang, Fig. 1, ¶0089), to provide a desired reflective efficiency according to the emission wavelength. The claimed range is within the range of Hwang.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (M.P.E.P. §2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by forming the insulating layer as a multilayer structure including the intermediate layer having a specific thickness as taught by Hwang to have the light emitting device, wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of 1 angstrom to 50 angstroms perpendicular to the dielectric layer, in order to provide a desired reflective efficiency according to the emission wavelength (Hwang, ¶0089).
Regarding Claim 10, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, Bhat, and Hwang discloses the light emitting device of claim 9. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the intermediate layer has a thickness of 5 angstroms to 20 angstroms perpendicular to the dielectric layer.
However, Hwang teaches forming an insulating layer (133) (Hwang, Fig. 1, ¶0007, ¶0045-¶0062, ¶0085-¶0089) on the light emitting structure (120), wherein the insulating layer (133) includes fluoride of Ti and comprises multiple layers having a thickness in a range of 1 Angstrom to 50,000 Angstroms (Hwang, Fig. 1, ¶0089), to provide a desired reflective efficiency according to the emission wavelength. The claimed range is within the range of Hwang.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (M.P.E.P. §2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat/ Hwang by forming the insulating layer as a multilayer structure including the intermediate layer having a specific thickness as taught by Hwang to have the light emitting device, wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of 5 angstroms to 20 angstroms perpendicular to the dielectric layer, in order to provide a desired reflective efficiency according to the emission wavelength (Hwang, ¶0089).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,608,168 to Chae in view of Scheible (US 2005/0286827), Hachiya (US 2006/0232196), and Bhat (US Patent No. 6,630,689) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sumitomo (US 2015/0364643).
Regarding Claim 13, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the reflective silver or gold layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 1000 nm. However, Sumitomo teaches that the reflective metal layer (50) has a thickness between 340 nm and 1500 nm (e.g., including a dielectric layer 51 having a thickness of 200 nm to 800 nm, an intermediate layer 52 with two layers each having a thickness of 40 nm to 300 nm, and a metal layer 53 having a thickness of 60 nm to 300 nm) (Sumitomo, Fig. 12, ¶0045-¶0049). The claimed range overlaps the range of Sumitomo.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (M.P.E.P. §2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by forming a reflective layer having a specific thickness as taught by Sumitomo to have the light emitting device, wherein the reflective silver or gold layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 1000 nm, in order to provide sufficient reflectance and to improve optical output of the light emitting element (Sumitomo, ¶0007, ¶0044-¶0049).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,608,168 to Chae in view of Scheible (US 2005/0286827), Hachiya (US 2006/0232196), and Bhat (US Patent No. 6,630,689) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0386189, cited in IDS of 07/10/2024, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 16, Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat discloses the light emitting device of claim 1. Further, Chae does not specifically disclose that the semiconductor diode structure comprises a II-VI semiconductor diode structure. However, Lee teaches that light emitting devices (Lee, Figs. 10-12, ¶0002-¶0003, ¶0118, ¶0419-¶0424) comprising a group III-V or a group II-VI compound semiconductor materials have advantages such as low power consumption, safety, and quick response speed, and are used to implement a white light source having high efficiency.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting device of Chae/Scheible/Hachiya/Bhat by forming the light emitting device comprising a group II-VI compound semiconductor materials as taught by Lee to have the light emitting device, wherein the semiconductor diode structure comprises a II-VI semiconductor diode structure in order to provide a light emitting device having advantages such as low power consumption, safety, and quick response speed, and to implement a white light sources having high efficiency (Lee, ¶0002-¶0003, ¶0118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that “Claim 1 has been amended to recite, "the metal ... being one of magnesium, germanium, silicon, manganese, tungsten, cobalt, nickel, copper, ruthenium, palladium, and platinum," (emphasis added) with support from, for example, paragraph [0036] and accompanying figures of the instant application. Chae and Scheible do not disclose the above limitation”, the examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize forming the multilayer insulating layer structure of Chae including a low refractive index material including MgF2 and SiOF (as taught by Scheible and Hachiya), and a high refractive index material including SiO (as taught by Bhat), such that a first element would include magnesium (Mg) and an intermediate layer would comprise a fluoride of Si and SiO having Si in a non-fluoride form.
Thus, the above Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Chae in view of Scheible, Hachiya, and Bhat is maintained.
Regarding dependent claims 4-5 and 8-20 which depend on the independent claim 1, the examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims are not persuasive for the above reasons, thus, the rejections of the dependent claims are sustained.
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 NATALIA GONDARENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-2284. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM-7:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/NATALIA A GONDARENKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891