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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 17 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally elected invention of claims 1-4 was drawn to a forming apparatus, and new claim 17 is drawn to an article manufacturing method. These inventions are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process using the apparatus of claim 1 instead of the apparatus of claim 14.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 5-6 remain withdrawn. Claims 7-17 are newly added. New claim 17 is withdrawn as set forth above.
In view of the amendment, filed 03/02/2026, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 10/02/2025.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 14 should each recite “wherein each of the plurality of process units is configured to perform a planarization process…”. Claim 2 should read “the plurality of process units” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examined claims are directed to an apparatus/device. The examiner notes that recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 11-12, and 15 is/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.
New claims 8, 11, and 15 recite the limitation “wherein distances between the supplier and the plurality of process units are smaller than distances between the supplier and the plurality of heating units.” The specification does not describe the claimed arrangement. At best, the limitation appears to intend to draw support from the figures; however, the drawings are not to scale, and MPEP 2125(II) states that proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when the drawings are not to scale. As such, the noted claims lack adequate written description support in the original disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-13 is/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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the planarization process" in in the next to last “wherein” clause and the last “wherein” clause. The claim has introduced a “planarization process” multiple times, once with specific steps and once without further definition, such that the noted limitation in each clause is unclear as to which “planarization process” is referenced.
Amended claim 2 recites the limitation "the substrate" in line 5. The claims have previously introduced “a substrate” multiple times, such that the noted limitation is unclear as to which substrate is referenced.
Amended claim 2 recites the limitation “and to convey a substrate a composition on which is cured…” which is unclear as to whether it is intended to limit the “first conveyor,” the “second conveyor,” or something else.
Amended claim 4 recites the limitation “a controller configured to control the forming apparatus such that (i) a time period from the first timing to a timing at which the first process unit brings the mold into contact with the composition on the first substrate conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the first process unit, and (ii) a time period from the second timing to a timing at which the second process unit brings the mold into contact with the composition on the second substrate conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the second process unit, are constant.” As recited, the intended meaning of two single time periods being constant is unclear. For example, it is not clear if the limitation is intended to require that the time periods are the same, or if the individual time periods repeat and are consistent each time, or something else.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the mold” in lines 11-12 and line 15. The claim previously introduced the presence of multiple molds (a mold associated with each of a plurality of process units), such that reference to “the mold” is unclear as to both which mold is being referenced as well as if/how the same mold is used by both the first and second process units.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al., US 20150355558 A1, in view of Terada et al., WO 2011145611 A1 (Espacenet translation provided and referenced below).
Regarding claim 1, Miyajima discloses a forming apparatus (lithography apparatus, Abstract, [0044], Fig. 6) for forming a composition on a substrate using a mold (using a mold to pattern resin on a substrate, [0038]-[0039]), the apparatus comprising:
A supplier (coating device 101, Fig. 6, [0049]) configured to supply a composition on a substrate (to apply adhesion material to substrate, [0049]);
A plurality of process units including a first process unit (one of imprint units 100a-d, Fig. 6, [0049]) and a second process unit (another of imprint units 100a-d, Fig. 6, [0049]), wherein each of the plurality of process units is configured to perform a planarization process in which a mold (original/mold 5, Fig. 6) is brought into contact with a composition supplied onto a substrate by the supplier, the composition is cured, and the mold is separated from the cured composition (each imprint unit 100 being configured to contact a composition on a respective substrate with a mold/original 5, perform curing, and then retract the original/mold 5, [0038], [0042]-[0043]);
A substrate conveyor configured to convey a substrate (substrate conveying path 27 including substrate conveying unit 14, Figs. 6 and 11-12, [0050]); and
Wherein a planarization process performed by the first process unit for a first substrate which is conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the first process unit after a composition is supplied on the first substrate by the supplier and a planarization process performed by the second process unit for a second substrate which is conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the second process unit after a composition is supplied on the second substrate by the supplier following the supply of the composition on the first substrate are performed in parallel (the substrate conveyor conveys substrates to respective process units, [0050]; the imprint units being configured for performing the imprint processes simultaneously, [0044], i.e., in parallel).
Miyajima does not disclose a plurality of heating units configured to perform a heating process on a cured composition cured by any one of the plurality of process units. Regarding the newly added “wherein” clauses, these clauses are recited as process steps, while the examined claim is directed to an apparatus. As such, the limitations require at most the structural capability of the apparatus to perform the recited functions and thus are interpreted as further requiring essentially that the substrate conveyor is capable of conveying each of the first substrate and the second substrate to a heating unit selected from the plurality of heating units for heating the respective substrate. Note that a relative timing of the heating, curing, and conveying does not reflect a structural distinction as recited. As Miyajima does not disclose heating units, Miyajima is also silent as to the noted capability.
In the analogous art, Terada discloses an imprint system (p. 1, first paragraph) including a plurality of imprint units (60, Fig. 1) for parallel processing of a plurality of coated wafer substrates (p. 2, lines 22-37). Terada teaches the system includes a plurality of heating units (heating units 42, 43, 52, and 53, Fig. 3, p. 5, lines 9-15, p. 6, line 41 – p. 7, line 10) configured to perform a heating process on a composition on a respective substrate (for heating a wafer, p. 5, lines 9-15), and a corresponding substrate conveyor conveys each substrate to a heating unit selected from the plurality of heating units for heating the respective substrate (conveying unit 20 conveys wafers to heating unit for heating, p. 9, lines 38-46). Terada teaches a heating unit can be used to heat a wafer according to a predetermined set temperature (p. 6, lines 45-54) and can be used to perform baking of a resist solution so as to appropriately form a resist film on a wafer substrate (p. 9, lines 38-43, p. 11, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the forming apparatus of Miyajima to include a plurality of heating units and the conveyor capability to convey substrates to a heating unit of the plurality of heating units in order to provide the functionality of controlling a temperature of the substrates according to a predetermined set temperature, e.g., in order to perform baking of a coated resist material, as taught by Terada.
Regarding claim 2, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and Miyajima discloses the substrate conveyor includes a first conveyor (substrate conveying unit 14, Figs. 6 and 11-12, [0050]) configured to convey a substrate on which a composition is supplied by the supplier to any one of the plurality [of] process units (Figs. 6 and 11-12, [0050]), and a second conveyor (substrate stage 2, Fig. 6, [0039], Figs. 17A-20B) configured to convey a substrate on which a composition is to be supplied by the supplier to a position where the first conveyor can receive the substrate (Fig. 6, [0039], Figs. 17A-20B, configured to convey a substrate to/from the first conveyor 14), and [the substrate conveyor is configured] to convey a substrate a composition on which is cured by any one of the plurality of process units to a heating unit selected from the plurality of heating units (per claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising an alignment station configured to measure a position of a substrate (Miyajima: alignment scope 11, Fig. 1, [0041]), wherein the first conveyor is configured to convey a substrate whose position is measured by the alignment station to any one of the plurality of process units (Miyajima: Fig. 6, [0050]), and wherein the first conveyor and the second conveyor are configured to convey a substrate a composition on which is cured by any one of the plurality of process units to a heating unit selected from the plurality of heating units (Miyajima discloses the substrate conveyor 27 that transports a substrate throughout the apparatus, Figs. 6, 11; the substrate conveyor being configured to convey a substrate to a heating unit per claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 1. The combination as set forth above did not address a particular position of the heating units.
Analogous art Terada further discloses heating units (at G3, Fig. 1) being positioned separately from corresponding imprint units (60, Fig. 1). A separate location would have been expected since the heating process is separate from the imprinting process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the plurality of heating units are arranged in an area apart from an area in which the plurality of process units are arranged so that the different units could perform their respective different processes separately and so that heating could take place independently from imprinting, as shown by Terada.
Regarding claim 8, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 1. The combination as set forth above did not address a particular relative position of the supplier, process units, and heating units.
In line with the present disclosure, Terada further discloses generally positioning a supplier (at G1 and/or G2, Fig. 1) closer to a plurality of process units (lower row of imprint units 60, Fig. 1), compared to a position of the supplier (at G1 and/or G2, Fig. 1) relative to a plurality of heating units (at G3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that distances between the supplier and the plurality of process units are smaller than distances between the supplier and the plurality of heating units as a known suitable arrangement for the respective working units as taught by Terada. Note also that typically a change in relative dimensions of a device otherwise performing the same does not amount to a patentable distinction (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of heating units are arranged in a vertical direction (Terada: p. 5, lines 9-11, the heating units being stacked in order from the bottom in four stages).
Regarding claim 14, Miyajima discloses a forming apparatus (lithography apparatus, Abstract, [0044], Fig. 6) for forming a composition on a substrate using a mold (using a mold to pattern resin on a substrate, [0038]-[0039]), the apparatus comprising:
A supplier (coating device 101, Fig. 6, [0049]) configured to supply a composition on a substrate (to apply adhesion material to substrate, [0049]);
A plurality of process units including a first process unit (one of imprint units 100a-d, Fig. 6, [0049]) and a second process unit (another of imprint units 100a-d, Fig. 6, [0049]), wherein each of the plurality of process units is configured to perform a planarization process in which a mold (original/mold 5, Fig. 6) is brought into contact with a composition supplied onto a substrate by the supplier, the composition is cured, and the mold is separated from the cured composition (each imprint unit 100 being configured to contact a composition on a respective substrate with a mold/original 5, perform curing, and then retract the original/mold 5, [0038], [0042]-[0043]);
A substrate conveyor configured to convey a substrate (substrate conveying path 27 including substrate conveying unit 14, Figs. 6 and 11-12, [0050]);
Wherein a planarization process performed by the first process unit for a first substrate which is conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the first process unit after a composition is supplied on the first substrate by the supplier, and a planarization process performed by the second process unit for a second substrate which is conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the second process unit after a composition is supplied on the second substrate by the supplier following the supply of the composition on the first substrate, are performed in parallel (the substrate conveyor conveys substrates to respective process units, [0050]; the imprint units being configured for performing the imprint processes simultaneously, [0044], i.e., in parallel).
Miyajima does not disclose a plurality of heating units configured to perform a heating process on a cured composition cured by any one of the plurality of process units. As Miyajima does not disclose heating units, Miyajima is also silent as to the noted positioning.
In the analogous art, Terada discloses an imprint system (p. 1, first paragraph) including a plurality of imprint units (60, Fig. 1) for parallel processing of a plurality of coated wafer substrates (p. 2, lines 22-37). Terada teaches the system includes a plurality of heating units (heating units 42, 43, 52, and 53, Fig. 3, p. 5, lines 9-15, p. 6, line 41 – p. 7, line 10) configured to perform a heating process on a composition on a respective substrate (for heating a wafer, p. 5, lines 9-15), and the heating units (at G3, Fig. 1) being positioned separately from corresponding imprint units (60, Fig. 1). Terada teaches a heating unit can be used to heat a wafer according to a predetermined set temperature (p. 6, lines 45-54) and can be used to perform baking of a resist solution so as to appropriately form a resist film on a wafer substrate (p. 9, lines 38-43, p. 11, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the forming apparatus of Miyajima to include a plurality of heating units wherein the plurality of heating units are arranged in an area apart from an area in which the plurality of process units are arranged in order to provide the functionality of controlling a temperature of the substrates according to a predetermined set temperature, e.g., in order to perform baking of a coated resist material, and so that the different units could perform their respective different processes separately and heating could take place independently from imprinting as taught by Terada.
Regarding claim 15, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 14. The combination as set forth above did not address a particular relative position of the supplier, process units, and heating units.
In line with the present disclosure, Terada further discloses generally positioning a supplier (at G1 and/or G2, Fig. 1) closer to a plurality of process units (lower row of imprint units 60, Fig. 1), compared to the supplier (at G1 and/or G2, Fig. 1) relative to a plurality of heating units (at G3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that distances between the supplier and the plurality of process units are smaller than distances between the supplier and the plurality of heating units as a known suitable arrangement for the respective working units as taught by Terada. Note also that typically a change in relative dimensions of a device otherwise performing the same does not amount to a patentable distinction (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 14, further comprising an alignment station configured to measure a position of a substrate (Miyajima: alignment scope 11, Fig. 1, [0041]), wherein the substrate conveyor is configured to convey a substrate whose position is measured by the alignment station to any one of the plurality of process units (Miyajima: Fig. 6, the substrate conveyor 27 being configured to convey a substrate to a process unit 100).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al., US 20150355558 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Miyajima discloses a forming apparatus (lithography apparatus, Abstract, [0044], Fig. 6) for forming a composition on each of a plurality of substrates using a mold (using a mold to pattern resin on a substrate, [0038]-[0039], imprinting being performed on plurality of substrates, [0044], Fig. 6), the apparatus comprising:
A supplier (coating device 101, Fig. 6, [0049]) configured to supply a composition on a substrate (to apply adhesion material to substrate, [0049]);
A plurality of process units including a first process unit (one of imprint units 100a-d, Fig. 6, [0049]) and a second process unit (another of imprint units 100a-d, Fig. 6, [0049]), wherein each of the plurality of process units is configured to bring a mold (original/mold 5, Fig. 6) into contact with a composition supplied onto a substrate by the supplier (each imprint unit 100 being configured to contact a composition on a respective substrate with a mold/original 5, [0038], [0042]-[0043]);
A substrate conveyor configured to convey a first substrate on which a composition is supplied by the supplier at a first timing and to convey a second substrate on which a composition is supplied by the supplier at a second timing after the first timing (substrate conveying path 27 including substrate conveying unit 14 for repeatedly conveying multiple substrates, Figs. 6 and 11-12, [0050]); and
A controller (control unit C, [0041], Fig. 1).
Regarding the claimed control configuration “to control the forming apparatus such that (i) a time period from the first timing to a timing at which the first process unit brings the mold into contact with the composition on the first substrate conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the first process unit, and (ii) a time period from the second timing to a timing at which the second process unit brings the mold into contact with the composition on the second substrate conveyed by the substrate conveyor to the second process unit, are constant,” in light of the current indefiniteness issue, the limitation is currently best interpreted to mean essentially that a time period between supply of a composition on a given substrate and when the mold is brought into contact with the respective substrate assembly is substantially the same for the first and second substrates.
Miyajima is silent as to the control configuration; however, Miyajima further discloses a process where the substrates are coated at the same time ([0049]), are conveyed simultaneously to respective imprint units ([0050]), and that the imprinting processes are performed simultaneously on the substrates ([0044]). Since the described process steps from coating to molding are described as occurring substantially simultaneously for the multiple substrates, then one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that a time period from supply of the coating composition to molding should be constant for the multiple substrates.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the controller of Miyajima was configured to control the time periods to be constant as claimed in order to perform the parallel processing as taught by Miyajima.
Regarding claim 13, Miyajima teaches the apparatus of claim 4, further comprising an alignment station configured to measure a position of a substrate (alignment scope 11, Fig. 1, [0041]), wherein the substrate conveyor is configured to convey a substrate whose position is measured by the alignment station to any one of the plurality of process units (Fig. 6, the substrate conveyor 27 being configured to convey a substrate to a process unit 100).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al., US 20150355558 A1, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Terada et al., WO 2011145611 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Miyajima teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Miyajima does not disclose a plurality of heating units configured to perform a heating process on a cured composition cured by any one of the plurality of process units. As Miyajima does not disclose heating units, Miyajima is also silent as to the noted positioning.
In the analogous art, Terada discloses an imprint system (p. 1, first paragraph) including a plurality of imprint units (60, Fig. 1) for parallel processing of a plurality of coated wafer substrates (p. 2, lines 22-37). Terada teaches the system includes a plurality of heating units (heating units 42, 43, 52, and 53, Fig. 3, p. 5, lines 9-15, p. 6, line 41 – p. 7, line 10) configured to perform a heating process on a composition on a respective substrate (for heating a wafer, p. 5, lines 9-15), and the heating units (at G3, Fig. 1) being positioned separately from corresponding imprint units (60, Fig. 1). Terada teaches a heating unit can be used to heat a wafer according to a predetermined set temperature (p. 6, lines 45-54) and can be used to perform baking of a resist solution so as to appropriately form a resist film on a wafer substrate (p. 9, lines 38-43, p. 11, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the forming apparatus of Miyajima to include a plurality of heating units wherein the plurality of heating units are arranged in an area apart from an area in which the plurality of process units are arranged in order to provide the functionality of controlling a temperature of the substrates according to a predetermined set temperature, e.g., in order to perform baking of a coated resist material, and so that the different units could perform their respective different processes separately and heating could take place independently from imprinting as taught by Terada.
Regarding claim 11, Miyajima teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Miyajima does not disclose a plurality of heating units configured to perform a heating process on a cured composition cured by any one of the plurality of process units. As Miyajima does not disclose heating units, Miyajima is also silent as to the noted relative positioning/distances.
In the analogous art, Terada discloses an imprint system (p. 1, first paragraph) including a plurality of imprint units (60, Fig. 1) for parallel processing of a plurality of coated wafer substrates (p. 2, lines 22-37). Terada teaches the system includes a plurality of heating units (heating units 42, 43, 52, and 53, Fig. 3, p. 5, lines 9-15, p. 6, line 41 – p. 7, line 10) configured to perform a heating process on a composition on a respective substrate (for heating a wafer, p. 5, lines 9-15). In line with the present disclosure, Terada discloses generally positioning a supplier (at G1 and/or G2, Fig. 1) closer to a plurality of process units (lower row of imprint units 60, Fig. 1), compared to the supplier (at G1 and/or G2, Fig. 1) relative to a plurality of heating units (at G3, Fig. 1). Terada teaches a heating unit can be used to heat a wafer according to a predetermined set temperature (p. 6, lines 45-54) and can be used to perform baking of a resist solution so as to appropriately form a resist film on a wafer substrate (p. 9, lines 38-43, p. 11, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the forming apparatus of Miyajima to include a plurality of heating units and to specify that distances between the supplier and the plurality of process units are smaller than distances between the supplier and the plurality of heating units as a known suitable arrangement for the respective working units in order to provide the functionality of controlling a temperature of the substrates according to a predetermined set temperature, e.g., in order to perform baking of a coated resist material, as taught by Terada. Note also that typically a change in relative dimensions of a device otherwise performing the same does not amount to a patentable distinction (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Miyajima discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of heating units are arranged in a vertical direction (Terada: p. 5, lines 9-11, the heating units being stacked in order from the bottom in four stages).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding amended claim 4, Applicant argues (p. 9) that Miyajima does not teach or suggest the newly claimed time periods. This argument is not found persuasive for the reasons provided above in the current rejection over Miyajima. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Applicant argues (p. 10) that the amended claims recite features that are not taught by the cited references. This argument is not found persuasive for the reasons provided above in the current rejections of the dependent claims.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights