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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/867,604 filed on 11/20/2024.
Currently, claims 1-4 and 6-9 are pending and examined.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 4, line 15; a heading “Description of Embodiments” should be read -- Detailed Description of the Drawings --.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 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.
Re claim 1, lines 2, 7; a phrase “which” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it’s unclear whether “which” referring to which structure? Claims 4, 7 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected. Claims 2, 3, line 2; having the same issues as mentioned; therefore, claims 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected.
Re claim 1, line 8; a citation “the periphery” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Re claim 3, lines 7, 12, 15, 18, 20; a citation “third recesses…the fourth” is confusing and indefinite because if there are “first and second recesses”? Clarification is required. Claim 9 depending upon the rejected claim 3 is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 5,680,891 to Prince.
Re claim 1: Prince discloses a structure in Fig. 4, formed by combining a first structure 12 extending in a predetermined direction with a first repeating shape (Figs. 3B, 4) and a second structure 14/16, which is either in a plate shape or extending in the predetermined direction with a second repeating shape (Fig. 4), such that a plurality of connection portions 44/44 are arranged at intervals along the predetermined direction, wherein the second structure 14/16 is in a plate shape (Fig. 4), and the first structure 12 includes first recesses 54/56, each of which is recessed in the predetermined direction from the periphery of the second structure 14/16 on an end face of the first structure 12 (Fig. 5B) in the predetermined direction toward the second structure 14/16.
Re claim 2: Prince discloses a structure Fig. 4, formed by combining a first structure 12 extending in a predetermined direction with a first repeating shape (Figs. 3B, 4) and a second structure 14/16, which is either in a plate shape or extending in the predetermined direction with a second repeating shape (Fig. 4), such that a plurality of connection portions 44/44 are arranged at intervals along the predetermined direction, wherein the second structure 14/16 is in a plate shape and further includes second recesses 54/56 arranged at intervals along the predetermined direction to avoid connection with the first structure 12.
Re claim 3: Prince discloses a structure Fig. 4, formed by combining a first structure 12 extending in a predetermined direction with a first repeating shape(Figs. 3B, 4) and a second structure 14/16, which is either in a plate shape or extending in the predetermined direction with a second repeating shape (Fig. 4), such that a plurality of connection portions 44/44 are arranged at intervals along the predetermined direction, wherein both the first repeating shape and second repeating shape are wavy (Figs. 4, 6A), the first structure 12 includes third recesses 54, each recessed 54/56 in the predetermined direction from an end face in the predetermined direction to avoid connection with the second structure 14/16, and first narrow portions 66 (Fig. 6A), each shorter in the predetermined direction compared to portions without the third recesses 54 as viewed in an extending direction of the first repeating shape, arranged at intervals along the predetermined direction, the second structure 14/16 includes fourth recesses 56, each recessed 56 in the predetermined direction from an end face in the predetermined direction to avoid connection with the first structure 12, and second narrow portions 62a (Fig. 6A), each shorter in the predetermined direction compared to portions without the fourth recesses 56 as viewed in an extending direction of the second repeating shape, arranged at intervals along the predetermined direction, an inner wall surface of the third recess 54 surrounds a portion of the second narrow portion 62a at intervals, and an inner wall surface of the fourth recess 56 surrounds a portion of the first narrow portion 66 at intervals.
Re claims 4, 6: wherein the first repeating shape is wavy, extending in the predetermined direction while undulating in a second predetermined direction different from the predetermined direction, the second structures 14/16 in a plate shape, and the structure is formed in a shape such that there are no connection portions along the predetermined direction at the central portion in the second predetermined direction, while the plurality of connection portions 44/44 are included at intervals along the predetermined direction on one side and the other side of the central portion in the second predetermined direction, respectively.
Re claim 6: wherein the first repeating shape is wavy, extending in the predetermined direction while undulating in a second predetermined direction different from the predetermined direction, the second structure is in a plate shape, and the structure is formed in a shape such that there are no connection portions along the predetermined direction at the central portion in the second predetermined direction, while the plurality of connection portions are included at intervals along the predetermined direction on one side and the other side of the central portion in the second predetermined direction, respectively.
Re claims 7, 8, 9: wherein the structure is an integrally molded member (col. 3, line 36).
The Examiner notes that the language "molded" is considered to be product-by-process language. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113 and 2173.05(p).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights