DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Adachi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0179242.
The elements of the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7 in the Office Action dated 4/7/26 are repeated herein in their entirety without modification.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0179242.
The reasoning of the rejection of claim 2 in the Office Action dated 4/7/26 is repeated herein in its entirety without modification.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0179242, in view of admitted prior art.
The reasoning of the rejection of claim 2 in the Office Action dated 4/7/26 is repeated herein in its entirety without modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ present no amendments, fail to argue with respect to the first and second portions Examiner rejected over choosing their own instead without a supporting evidentiary basis, and also argue unclaimed limitations.
Applicants argue: the first and second portions of Adachi, as marked by Applicants in the annotated figure, overlap in the first direction, and therefore fail to satisfy the limitation “in the first direction, the first portion is spaced from the second portion”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “fails to overlap”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claim merely requires that “in the first direction, the first portion is spaced from the second portion”. The claim provides no extent to the claimed “portions”. As such, any “portion” that extends farther in the first direction than another satisfies the limitation “in the first direction, the first portion is spaced from the second portion”. Moreover, any space between the “portions” in the first direction reads on the claim limitation. Examiner chose the extent of the “portions” such that this limitation is met.
Applicants, however, disregarded the “portions” Examiner chose and rejected over, and instead annotated Fig. 3B of Adachi with Applicants’ own “portions”. Although the claims provide no extent to the claimed “portions”, Applicants have annotated the figure with “portions” showing their extent. Applicants are invited to show, with particularity, which limitations provide the extent of the shown “portions” such that they cannot be extended farther to the left for the first “portion” and farther to the right for the second “portion”.
Nonetheless, the “portions” that Applicants annotated show that the first portion extends farther to the left than where they overlap, and the second portion extends farther to the right than where they overlap. As such, “in the first direction, the first portion is spaced from the second portion”, the annotated figure clearly showing much space between the right of the second portion and the left of the first portion. Furthermore, there is a space in the first direction between that which Applicant have annotated as the first and second portions. Examiner construes Applicants’ annotated figure as an admission that, as Applicants chose and annotated, “in the first direction, the first portion is spaced from the second portion”.
Applicants further describe Adachi’s alleged failure to teach the claimed limitation as Adachi shows first and second “portions”, as Applicants chose and annotated, that overlap. Although “overlapping” appears several times in the claims, the claims do not say --the first portion and the second portion do not overlap--. Applicants are invited to show, with particularity, which limitations require that the first and second portions do not overlap. Examiner construes Applicants’ argument as a further admission that the claims would require additional unclaimed features to overcome Adachi, namely that --the first portion and the second portion do not overlap--.
Examiner thanks Applicants for their admissions that greatly simplify issues for appeal.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights