DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18697692 application filed April 1, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18697669. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of copending Application No. 18697669 comprises all features of claim 1, and that claim 7 may comprise both hydrofluoric acid and one or more of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, which all having an acid dissociation constant greater than that of the hydrofluoric acid, and that any of the acid may be considered a diluent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “a waveguide layer of a 20180081204” is not clear. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a waveguide layer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rotondaro et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20030109106), hereinafter “Rotondaro”:--Claims 1, 5: Rotondaro teaches a method of etching, comprisingforming a high-k dielectric layer 205 on a substrate (Fig. 1-2, [0017-0020, 0032]), wherein the high-k dielectric may be barium titanate (BaTiO3) and strontium titanate (SrTiO3) ([0021-0022]);forming a patterned resist layer over the barium titanate layer, wherein the high-k dielectric layer is exposed through an opening in the mask ([0017, 0023]);etching the exposed high-k dielectric layer ([0024], Step 103 in Fig. 1) by using an aqueous solution comprising a strong acid, such as sulfuric acid and HCl, and a fluorine compound, such as HF and ammonium fluoride ([0026]). It is noted that the term “aqueous solution” implies that the solution comprises water, which may be considered a diluent, and the combination of HF and ammonium fluoride produces a buffering effect that stabilizes the pH of the aqueous solution, as evidenced by Buffered oxide etch – Wikipedia (see attachment) In an embodiment, Rotondaro teaches that the aqueous solution may comprise 25-95 vol.% of the strong acid, 0-20 vol% of the oxidizing agent, 0.001-0.5 vol.% of the fluorine compound ([0027]). It is noted that the patterned resist layer reads on the patterned masking layer, the sulfuric acid reads on the one or more additional acids having an acid dissociation constant greater than HF, and a combination of HF and ammonium fluoride reads on the buffer, as recited in claim 1. Alternately, although Rotondaro does not explicitly disclose the exact combination of components recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use an aqueous solution comprising the above components from the list of possible components taught by Rotondaro in the absence of an unexpected result.--Claims 2, 3: Rotondaro further teaches that the aqueous solution comprises an oxidizing agent, such as hydrogen peroxide ([0026]). --Claim 6: It is noted that the 25-95 vol.% of sulfuric acid and the 0.001-0.5 vol.% of HF overlaps the range of sulfuric acid:HF ratio recited in claim 6.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rotondaro:--Claim 7: Rotondaro teaches the invention as above. Rotondaro further teaches that the etching may transversely etch a polysilicon layer underneath the patterned resist layer to form an undercut ([0032]) Although Rotondaro fails to teach that the etching is isotropic, since the etching solution and the photoresist mask/barium titanate structure taught by Rotondaro are the same as Applicant’s, the etching must form undercut etch regions in the barium titanate layer underneath the photoresist mask, as taught by Applicant.--Claim 8: Although Rotondaro fails to teach that the etching solution dissolves barium containing etching residue, since the etching solution and the photoresist mask/barium titanate structure taught by Rotondaro are the same as Applicant’s, the etching must dissolve some barium containing etching residues, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. It has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255.
Claims 4 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotondaro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20130078773), hereinafter “Xu”, and Hideki et al. (JP2004214559A, published 7/29/2004), hereinafter “Hideki”:--Claim 4: Rotondaro teaches the invention as above, wherein Rotondaro teaches that the high-k dielectric layer may be etched by using a solution comprising HF, a strong acid, such as sulfuric acid and HCl, and water. Rotondaro fails to teach the solution comprising ethanol. Xu, also directed to making a semiconductor device, teaches that a high-k dielectric layer ([0002]) may be etched by immersing in a solution comprising HF, HCl and water or an organic solvent, such as ethanol ([0007, 0048-0049]). Hideki, also directed to etching a barium titanate layer by using an aqueous solution containing two or more acids, such as HF, HNO3, HCl,… (Fig 2B, see Label A), further teaches that the solution may further comprise an organic solvent, such as ethanol, to suppress secondary etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to add ethanol as an equivalent substitution for the water as the solvent in etching solution in the invention of Rotondaro because Xu teaches that this would be effective and Hideki teaches that this would suppress unwanted secondary etching. --Claim 18: It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to immersing the substrate in the etching solution during the etching because Xu teaches that this would be effective.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotondaro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aminpur et al. (U.S. Pat. 6482726), hereinafter “Aminpur”:--Claim 9: Rotondaro teaches the invention as above. Rotondaro further teaches that the patterned resist layer is defined in a lithographically defined pattern ([0023]). Rotondaro fails to teach that the patterned resist layer comprises photoresist. Aminpur teaches a method of making a semiconductor device, comprisingforming a dielectric layers 540 and 550 over a substrate, the dielectric layers comprises a layer of barium titanate layer and a strontium titanate layer (Col. 5, Lines 32-52);forming a patterned photoresist layer 570 on the dielectric layers (Fig. 5; Col. 6, Lines 1-21);etching the exposed portion of the dielectric layers by using an acid solution (Col. 6, Lines 41-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use photoresist as the resist layer in the invention of Rotondaro because Rotondaro further teaches that the patterned resist layer is defined in a lithographically defined pattern and Aminpur teaches that photoresist would be effective.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashimoto (U.S. PGPub. 20020176679), hereinafter “Nashimoto”, in view of Rotondaro:--Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21: Nashimoto teaches a method for fabricating a Mach-Zehnder interference switch ([0066]), comprising-forming a buffer layer 2 on a substrate, the buffer layer 2 is made of SrTiO3 ([0117], Fig. 11A);-depositing an optical waveguide layer 3 over a substrate (Fig. 12A, [0118]), wherein layer 3 comprises a metal oxide of ABO3 type, such as BaTiO3 ([0090]), wherein the depositing layer 3 comprises depositing a solid phase layer 3A at 800C ([0118], Fig. 12A), then depositing an amorphous phase layer 3B at 350C ([0119], Fig. 13A);-forming a photoresist mask on the layer 3B ([0120]);-etching the amorphous phase layer 3B through the mask by using an HCl aqueous solution to form a ridge 4, the etching stops at layer 3A ([0121], Fig. 14A and B) Nashimoto further teaches that “wet etching was carried out by an HCl aqueous solution by using the resist as a mask. A convex, linear pattern was thereby formed on the amorphous PZT optical waveguide layer 3B. The etching in the depthwise direction was stopped at the surface of the PZT optical waveguide layer 3A which had been made epitaxial. The etching in the widthwise direction could be controlled by the etching time because the amorphous PZT optical waveguide layer 3B beneath the mask was under-etched. For example, by adjusting the etching time in accordance with an etching speed of about 0.1 µm /min to about 0.5 µm /min and stopping etching at the point when the width of the linear portion was 5.0 µm which was more narrow than the resist pattern, a ridge configuration having a height of 0.5 µm and a width at the linear portion of 5.0 µm could be formed” ([0121], emphasis added). In a subsequent step, Nashimoto discloses etching a ABO3 type film through a photoresist mask undercuts underneath the photoresist mask by using an aqueous solution comprising HCl to form a ridge having a tapered sidewall (Fig. 16A, [0123-0124]). Therefore, one of skill in the art would interpret the highlighted term as a mistype, and is intended to be “undercut”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form a ridge 4 having a tapered sidewall when etching the layer 3B in the invention of Nashimoto. Nashimoto is silent about other components in the HCl aqueous solution, and failed to teaches the claimed components recited in claim 1. Rotondaro, also directed to a method of etching a layer comprising barium titanate (BaTiO3) through a resist mask ([0017, 0023]), teaches that the method comprises using an aqueous solution comprising a strong acid, such as HCl, and a fluorine compound, such as HF and ammonium fluoride ([0026]). In an embodiment, Rotondaro teaches that the aqueous solution may comprise 25-95 vol.% of the strong acid, 0-20 vol% of the oxidizing agent, 0.001-0.5 vol.% of the fluorine compound ([0027]). It is noted that the patterned resist layer reads on the claimed patterned masking layer, the sulfuric acid reads on the claimed one or more additional acids having an acid dissociation constant greater than HF, a combination of HF and ammonium fluoride reads on the claimed buffer, and the combination of layer 3 and 5 reads on the claimed metal oxide layer as recited in claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the aqueous solution as taught by Rotondaro above to etch layer 3B in the invention of Nashimoto because Nashimoto teaches that the etching of layer 5 uses an aqueous solution comprising HCl but is silent about the details, and Rotondaro teaches that such aqueous solution would be effective. It is noted that the term “aqueous solution” implies that the solution comprises water, which may be considered a diluent, and the combination of HF and ammonium fluoride produces a buffering effect that stabilizes the pH of the aqueous solution, as evidenced by Buffered oxide etch – Wikipedia (see attachment). It is noted that layer 3B reads on the barium titanate layer, the photoresist mask reads on the patterned masking layer, the HCl reads on the claimed one or more additional acids having an acid dissociation constant greater than HF, a combination of HF and ammonium fluoride reads on the claimed buffer recited in claim 1.--Claims 2, 3: Rotondaro further teaches that the aqueous solution comprises an oxidizing agent, such as hydrogen peroxide ([0026]). --Claim 6: It is noted that the 25-95 vol.% of sulfuric acid and the 0.001-0.5 vol.% of HF overlaps the range of sulfuric acid:HF ratio recited in claim 6.--Claim 7: Although Rotondaro fails to teach that the etching is isotropic, since the etching solution and the photoresist mask/barium titanate structure taught by Rotondaro are the same as Applicant’s, the etching must form undercut etch regions in the barium titanate layer underneath the photoresist mask, as taught by Applicant.--Claim 8: Although Rotondaro fails to teach that the etching solution dissolves barium containing etching residue, since the etching solution and the photoresist mask/barium titanate structure taught by Rotondaro are the same as Applicant’s, the etching must dissolve some barium containing etching residues, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. It has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255.--Claims 12, 14: Nashimoto further teaches that optical waveguide layer 2 may comprise SrTiO3 ([0129]). Thus Fig. 14A and B shows that the ridge, which is a portion of layer 3B, comprises BaTiO3 ([0090]), and the horizontal portion, which is the combination of layer 3A and 2, comprises SrTiO3.--Claim 15: Fig. 14A shows that layer 3 is thicker than layer 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the barium titanate layer thicker than the strontium titanate layer.--Claim 17: Nashimoto further teaches that the ridge comprises a waverguide ([0121])
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashimoto in view of Rotondaro as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20180081204), hereinafter “Ma”:--Claim 13: Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro teaches the invention as above. Nashimoto and Rotondaro failed to teaches forming electrodes. Ma teaches a method of making a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (Fig. 5 and 8, [0055]), comprising providing a ferroelectric layer 301 comprising barium titanate and/or strontium titanate ([0023-0024, 0047]) on a substrate 306 (Fig. 3, [0067]); selectively etching a portion of the ferroelectric layer 301 to form a protrusion ([0076]); depositing metal electrodes 302 on both sides of the protrusion ([0076], Fig. 3). Since Ma is silent about a method of selectively etching a portion of the ferroelectric layer 301 to form the protrusion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the etching method taught by Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro for the selective etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the electrodes in the invention of Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro because Nashimoto teaches to fabricate a Mach-Zehnder interferometer , and Ma teaches that such electrode would be required for a Mach-Zehnder interferomete.
Claims 4 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashimoto in view of Rotondaro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20130078773), hereinafter “Xu”, and Hideki et al. (JP2004214559A, published 7/29/2004), hereinafter “Hideki”:--Claim 4: Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro teaches the invention as above, wherein Rotondaro teaches that the high-k dielectric layer may be etched by using a solution comprising HF, a strong acid, such as sulfuric acid and HCl, and water. Rotondaro fails to teach the solution comprising ethanol. Xu, also directed to making a semiconductor device, teaches that a high-k dielectric layer ([0002]) may be etched by immersing in a solution comprising HF, HCl and water or an organic solvent, such as ethanol ([0007, 0048-0049]). Hideki, also directed to etching a barium titanate layer by using an aqueous solution containing two or more acids, such as HF, HNO3, HCl,… (Fig 2B, see Label A), further teaches that the solution may further comprise an organic solvent, such as ethanol, to suppress secondary etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to add ethanol as an equivalent substitution for the water as the solvent in etching solution in the invention of Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro because Xu teaches that this would be effective and Hideki teaches that this would suppress unwanted secondary etching. --Claim 18: It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to immersing the substrate in the etching solution during the etching because Xu teaches that this would be effective.
Claims 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashimoto in view of Rotondaro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaushik et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20220238431), hereinafter “Kaushik”:--Claims 18, 19, 20: Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro teaches a method of etching a dielectric layer by using an etching solution, as shown above. Rotondaro further teaches that the dielectric layer is exposed to the etching solution during the etching ([0034]), but is silent about the manner of the exposing. Kaushik, also directed to making a semiconductor device, teaches that a layer on the semiconductor device may be patterned or etched by exposing to a wet etch chemistry, such as by using a spin-coating process, a spray-coating process, an immersion-coating process, a vapor-coating process, a soaking process, combinations thereof ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to apply the etching solution to the dielectric layer by using a spin-coating process, a spray-coating process, an immersion-coating process, a vapor-coating process, a soaking process, or combinations thereof in the invention of Nashimoto modified by Rotondaro because Rotondaro teaches that the dielectric layer is exposed to the etching solution during the etching but is silent about the manner of the exposing, and Kaushik teaches that such methods would be effective.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive, as shown above. Furthermore, new grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above. --Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), this argument is not persuasive. Claim 17 is still not clear, as shown 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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
