DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 03 September 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4 – 18 are pending and currently being examined.
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 § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toonder (PG Pub US 20080170936 A1) in view of Liang032 (PG Pub US 20220225032 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 6 of Toonder
In Re Claim 1, Figure 6 of Toonder discloses an APG (APG: air-pulse generating) device (although the complex fluids in paragraph [0059] have not specifically been disclosed as air, the type of medium does not make a structural distinction over the prior art), comprising: a plurality of APG units (30; each actuator element on the bottom wall and its opposite actuator element on the top wall constitutes one APG unit); wherein an APG unit comprises a membrane (30), the membrane is actuated to move in a membrane movement direction (horizontal line in Figure 6) ;wherein the plurality of APG units is arranged in the membrane movement direction (Figure 6 shows three positions of each actuating element); (paragraphs [0086]-[0092]; Figure 6). Toonder also discloses that the plurality of APG units comprises a first APG unit (one of the annotated rectangles in the above figure above) and a second APG unit (another of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the first rectangle);wherein the first APG unit is directly stacked on the second APG unit; wherein the first APG unit comprises a first flap pair (opposite actuators 30) and the second APG unit comprises a second flap pair (opposite actuators 30); wherein the first flap pair performs a first common mode movement and the second flap pair performs a second common mode movement (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2); wherein the first common mode movement is opposite to the second common mode movement (paragraph [0091] states that the movement can be out of phase; paragraph [0092] states that movement can be in opposite directions; although movement in opposite directions as a pair is not explicitly disclosed, this is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II).
Toonder does not disclose that the plurality of APG units are stacked with each other (because all units share a common wall). The Figure 15 embodiment of Liang032 discloses a stacked-APG (APG: air-pulse generating) device (400), comprising: a plurality (two) of APG units (100, 100’) stacked with each other; wherein an APG unit comprises a membrane (102 or 102’), the membrane is actuated to move in a membrane movement direction (vertical line in Figure 15); wherein the plurality of APG units (100, 100’) is stacked in the membrane movement direction (paragraphs [0120], [0122]; Figure 15).
However, the Figure 15 embodiment (paragraphs [0120],[0122]) of Liang032 discloses a stacked-APG (APG: air-pulse generating) device (400), comprising: two APG units (100, 100’) stacked with each other having membranes (102, 102’). Paragraph [0122] discloses that the displacement of adjacent flap pairs can mirror symmetric (i.e. opposite directions) or alternatively the displacement can be in the same direction. Paragraph [0088] also discloses that the flap pairs (102a/102b) can be operated to move synchronously (i.e. same direction) in the fan application or in opposite directions in the APPS application.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the plurality of APG units such that they are stacked with each other as taught by Liang032 (three stacked units are shown in the annotated figure above) because it is only a matter of splitting the two common walls into individual wall sections that are joined/stacked together, and it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements joined together is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C),
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the plurality of APG units comprises a plurality of flap pairs (each actuator 30 on one wall and its opposite on the other wall form a flap pair); wherein the plurality of flap pairs performs common mode movements (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2). Liang032 also discloses that the plurality of APG units (100, 100’) comprises a plurality of flap pairs (one pair is labeled 102 twice, another pair is labeled 102’ twice); wherein plurality of flap pairs (102, 102’) performs common mode movements (paragraph [0088] discloses that the flaps of each pair moves synchronously; paragraph [0122] discloses that the displacement profiles of 102 and 102’ are the same).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and Toonder discloses that when the first flap pair moves toward a first direction (for example from left to right) as the first common mode movement, the second flap pair moves toward a second direction opposite to the first direction as the second common mode movement (paragraph [0092] states that movement can be in opposite directions; although movement in opposite directions as a pair is not explicitly disclosed, this is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 4, and Toonder discloses that a third APG unit (third of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the second rectangle); wherein the second APG unit is directly stacked on the third APG unit as depicted; wherein the third APG unit comprises a third flap pair (opposite actuators 30); wherein the third flap pair performs a third common mode movement (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2).
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and although Toonder does not explicitly disclose that the first flap pair moves toward a first direction as the first common mode movement, the third flap pair moves toward the first direction as the third common mode movement, when the second flap pair moves in the opposite direction, this is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II (note that each flap 30 can be individually operated as stated in paragraphs [0091] and [0092]).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses a plurality of flap pairs (opposite actuators 30), and Liang032 discloses that a flap pair (102a, 102b) performs differential mode movements (paragraph [0088]: “two membranes (102a and 102b) to move symmetrically, in opposite direction”; also see flap pair 101 and 103 in Figure 7 which also exhibit differential mode movement). Note that each actuator/flap (30) of Toonder can be operated individually (paragraphs [0091] and [0092]). Operating each flap pair of Toonder in a differential mode movement as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the first flap pair (30) performs a first differential mode movement and the second flap pair performs a second differential mode movement (the differential mode movement is taught by Liang032 - 102a, 102b; paragraph [0088]: “two membranes (102a and 102b) to move symmetrically, in opposite direction”; also see flap pair 101 and 103 in Figure 7 which also exhibit differential mode movement). Note that each actuator/flap (30) of Toonder can be operated individually (paragraphs [0091] and [0092]). Operating a flap pair of Toonder in a differential mode movement as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and Liang032 discloses operating a flap pair (101, 103) in a differential mode (Figure 7; paragraph [0088]) as a virtual valve (paragraph [0084]). Operating the first and second flap pairs of Toonder in differential mode movement to form a virtual valve as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode/virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claims 10 and 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and the operation of the virtual valves is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap of Toonder which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (opening or closing a virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses a third APG unit (third of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the second rectangle); wherein the second APG unit is directly stacked on the third APG unit (second and third annotated rectangles); wherein the third APG unit comprises a third flap pair (opposite actuators 30); and Liang032 discloses operating a flap pair (101, 103) in a differential mode (Figure 7; paragraph [0088]) as a virtual valve (paragraph [0084]). Operating the third flap pair of Toonder in a differential mode movement to form a virtual valve as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap of Toonder which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode/virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claims 13 and 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 12, and the operation of the virtual valves is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap of Toonder which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (opening or closing a virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the stacked-APG device is driven by a modulation driving signal (paragraph [0006]: “electric signals”) to perform a common mode movement (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Liang032 discloses that the stacked-APG device (400) is driven by a demodulation driving signal (paragraph [088]) to perform a differential mode movement (paragraph [0088]: “to move symmetrically, in opposite direction”).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and Liang032 discloses electrodes associated with the flaps (paragraph [0098]), and a modulation signal/demodulation signal (because paragraph [0088] states that the same flaps 102a/102b can be moved synchronously or in opposite directions), and Toonder discloses that actuator/flap (30) has first and second electrodes (paragraph [0117]).
In Re Claim 18, the combined references above discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and Liang032 discloses λ as a wavelength corresponding to a pulse rate of the stacked-APG stacked device (paragraph [0032]), and paragraph [0123] discloses that λ is generally much longer than a dimension of the stacked-APG device (Figure 15), so the dimension is much shorter than λ, which establishes the dimension as a result effective variable. The spacing between membranes is shorter than the dimension (because the membranes are inside the APG device), so the spacing is also much shorter than λ.
Although Liange032 does not specifically disclose that the spacing is less than 0.16 λ (i.e. λ/2π), the claimed range would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that: “Toonder's actuator element 30 on the same wall 36 in the left-hand rectangle and Toonder's actuator element 30 on the same wall 36 in the adjacent central rectangle are not oriented completely out of phase”.
Examiner’s Response: “completely out of phase” is merely choosing a 180 degree phase difference (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E). The 180 degree phase difference is well known – it is also referred to as “antiphase”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because although Figure 6 does not depict movements of the flap pairs in opposite directions, Paragraph [0092] clearly confirms that the movement of the actuator elements 30 can be in opposite directions as claimed (as an option, this also implies a 180 degree phase difference), see also paragraph [0072]. Note also that Paragraph [0095] also states that the actuator elements can be addressed individually or together as a row. Note additionally that paragraph [0122] of Liang032 also discloses movement in opposite directions (“mirror symmetric”), and provides the movement in opposite directions as an option to movement in the same direction for stacked APG units 102 and 102’.
Applicant has argued on Pages 7 – 8 of Applicant’s Response that: “Moreover, Toonder's paragraph [0092] describes "opposite movements of the actuator elements 30 on e.g. opposite positions of the walls 36 of the micro-channel 33". Such opposite movements of the actuator elements 30 on the opposite walls 36 do not constitute a common mode movement”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Figure 6 of Toonder clearly depicts the common mode movement of each flap pair of adjacent units. Similarly, Figure 15 of Liang032 also discloses common mode movement position of each flap pair of adjacent APG units 102 and 102’. Although the depicted movement of the flap pairs in Figure 6 of Toonder is synchronized in the same direction, paragraph [0092] clearly discloses that the movement can be in opposite directions. Paragraph [0122] of Liang032 also discloses movement in opposite directions (“mirror symmetric”). Also note that Liang032 (paragraph [0088]) discloses moving two flaps/actuators 102a, 102b synchronously (like Figure 6 of Toonder) or in opposite directions. Choosing from two options (moving two flaps synchronously or in opposite directions) is within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E).
Applicant has argued on Page 8 of Applicant’s Response that: “The claimed opposite common mode movements indicate physical orientations or relative arrangements of two adjacent flap pairs. Because the physical configurations of Liang032 and Toonder differ from those recited in the amended claim 1, the instant application makes a structural distinction over Liang032 and Toonder”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the physical orientations or relative arrangements achieved two adjacent flap pairs are not permanent/fixed. The physical orientations or relative arrangements are achieved as a result of movement of the flap pairs, which is a manner of operation that does not structurally distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2114-II). Every position of Applicant’s flaps depicted in Applicant’s Figures is achievable by the flaps of Liang032 and Toonder as evidenced across Figures 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15 of Liang032 and Figure 6 of Toonder.
Applicant has argued on Page 8 of Applicant’s Response that: “Furthermore, the claimed opposite common mode movements cause synchronized compression-expansion cycles in adjacent chambers (e.g., paragraph [0032] of the instant application), while Toonder employs actuator elements 30, resembling artificial cilia, to drive or mix saliva and other biological fluids, which are essentially incompressible fluids”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the term “fluid” is generic for both liquids and gases (which could be air), see Merriam Webster dictionary definition. The term “fluid” is not limited to incompressible liquids/fluids. For evidence thereof, see Chien (PG Pub US 20210312619 A1); paragraph [0024]: “could be of any biological fluid, such as blood, CSF, air, and the like, or may be a combination of biological fluids”.
Applicant has argued on Page 9 of Applicant’s Response that: “This interpretation, however, improperly combines structurally different embodiments. In Liang032's FIG. 7, the valve portions 101 and 103 of the APG device 850 are disposed adjacent to each other. In Liang032's FIG. 15, the valve portions 101 and 103 of the APG device 100 are separated by the membrane portion 102 and thus do not constitute a flap pair defining a15 virtualalve. Moreover, because the APG devices 100 and 100', in Liang032's FIG. 15, are connected via the opening 116 between the membrane portions 102 and 102', instead of between the valve portions 101 and 101', Liang032 fails to disclose the APG device 850 with the paired valve portions 101 and 103 stacking on another APG device with paired valve portions”.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner is not proposing combining the valve of Figure 7 of Liang032 with the Figure 15 embodiment of Liang032. The examiner is proposing reducing the spacing (only if necessary) between the two participating/paired flaps of one or more flap-pairs of Toonder such that each can function as a virtual valve. A change in spacing between adjacent flaps is within the scope of Toonder’s disclosure because Figure 6 shows a large spacing and Figure 8 shows a small spacing. Paragraph [0093] of Toonder discloses that the flaps 30 can be actuated in correlated movement, it is only a matter of reducing the spacing between the flaps as taught by the Figure 8 embodiment of Liang032 only if necessary. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant has argued on Page 10 of Applicant’s Response that: “Toonder's actuator elements 30 disposed on opposing walls 36 are spaced too far apart to cooperate as a virtual valve capable of closing the micro-channel 33”.
Examiner’s Response: This appears to be pure speculation by Applicant because even applicant’s flaps of the virtual valve have spacing between them in the form of a “slit”. So the valve/channel is never completely closed. Although the Figure 6 embodiment of Toonder discloses a large spacing, the Figure 8 embodiment does disclose a small spacing. Figures 6 and 8 of Toonder clearly demonstrate that changes in spacing are within the scope of Toonder’s disclosure, so it is only a matter of choosing Tonder’s spacing to be equal to the spacing represented by applicant’s “slit”. Configuring the spacing of Tonder’s flap pairs so that they can function as a virtual valve as taught by Liang032 provides the added capability of air pulse generation (APPS) to the disclosed transport/mixing/vortex generation capabilities of Toonder. Note also that changing the spacing in itself (so that it is equal to applicants “slit”) is not a patentable feature because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) .
Applicant has argued on Page 10 of Applicant’s Response that: “Rather, the actuator elements 30 resemble artificial cilia and are used to transport fluid”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s apparatus also essentially transports fluid at increased airflow rates from above the top end to below the bottom end.
Applicant has argued on Page 10 of Applicant’s Response that: “The claimed "closed" virtual valve is structurally distinct. The claimed "closed" virtual valve and the claimed "opened" virtual valve are defined because of physical slits within flap pairs (e.g., paragraph [0030] of the instant application). Because the physical configurations of Liang032 and Toonder differ from those recited in claim 10 or l 1, the instant application makes a structural distinction over Liang032 and Toonder”.
Examiner’s Response: Liang032 clearly discloses a virtual valve. The “closed” and “open” positions occur because of movement of the flaps, therefore the open or closed positions do not make a structural distinction over the prior art. All structural limitations are met when two-adjacent flap pairs of Toonder are each configured as a virtual valve as taught by Liang032 by simply providing the adequate spacing represented by applicant’s “slit”.
Applicant has argued on Pages 10 – 11 of Applicant’s Response that: “Furthermore, the claimed virtual valves allow persistent pressure to rise much higher than those achievable with the single virtual valve shown in LiangO32's FIG. 7 (e.g., paragraphs [0058]-[0059] of the instant application). On the other hand, Toonder's actuator elements 30 move in a manner resembling cilia and are intended to transport fluid through the micro-channel 33 without forming any virtual valve that can switch to a "closed" state (e.g., paragraphs [0071]-[0074] of Toonder)”.
Examiner’s Response: The cilia are capable of functioning as a virtual valve, and also clearly perform the transporting function. Liang032 also discloses in paragraph [0088] that the transporting function (“airflow generation”) can be performed by the disclosed structures by merely changing the driving signals. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant has argued on Page 11 of Applicant’s Response that: “The Applicant further respectfully submits that the "obvious to try" rationale (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E) is not appropriate. Even if there is a recognized need for heat dissipation efficiency (e.g., paragraphs [0067] of the instant application), there is no finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need, and no reasonable expectation of success”.
Examiner’s Response: There is clearly two options, i.e. a finite number of options of operating each flap-pair of Toonder and Liang032. Choosing to operate each flap pair of Toonder by one of the two options: 1) synchronous operation in the same direction 2) out of phase operation in opposite directions yields predictable results because both these options are discussed by both Toonder and Liang032. See paragraph [0091] of Toonder: “In the example shown in FIG. 6, all polymer actuator elements 30, also those on different rows, move simultaneously. The functioning of the polymer actuators 30 may be improved by individual addressing of the actuator elements 30 or of the rows of actuator elements 30, so that their movement is out of phase”; and see paragraph [0122] of Liang032: “the displacement profile(s) of the membrane portion 102 (or the valve portions 101, 103) of the air-pulse generating device 400 may be mirror symmetric to the displacement profile(s) of membrane portion 102′ (or valve portions 101′, 103′) of the air-pulse generating device 400. Alternatively, by interleaving or inverting the driving signals of the two air-pulse generating devices 100, the displacement profile(s) of the membrane portion 102 (or the valve portions 101, 103) of the air-pulse generating device 400 may be the same as the displacement profile(s) of membrane portion 102′ and (or valve portions 101′, 103′) of the air-pulse generating device 400, such that (the direction and the magnitude of) the displacement of the membrane portion 102 may equal (the direction and the magnitude of) the displacement of the membrane portion 102′”.
Applicant has argued on Page 11 of Applicant’s Response that: “However, Liang032 is silent regarding an arrangement including both a "closed" virtual valve and an "opened" virtual valve”.
Examiner’s Response: It is only a matter of operating/positioning one flap-pair of Toonder such that it is in a closed position and is therefore a closed virtual valve as taught by Liang032, and operating/positioning an adjacent flap-pair such that it is in an open position and is therefore an open virtual valve as taught by Liang032. Manner of operation does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II.
Applicant has argued on Page 11 of Applicant’s Response that: “Because the APG devices 100 and 100', in Liang032's FIG. 15, are connected via the opening 116 between the membrane portions 102 and 102', instead of between the valve portions 101 and 101', Liang032 fails to disclose the APG device 850 with an "opened" virtual valve stacking on another APG device with a "closed" virtual30 valve”.
Examiner’s Response: The word “stack” does not require direct contact between adjacent stacking elements. APG devices 100 and 100’ are still stacked even though there is an interposing membrane 102/102’. Keeping one valve open while the other valve is closed is only a manner of operation which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II.
Applicant has argued on Page 12 of Applicant’s Response that: “The claimed "closed" virtual valve is structurally distinct. The claimed "closed" virtual valve and the claimed "opened" virtual valve are defined because of physical slits within flap pairs”.
Examiner’s Response: The “slit” is still a gap between paired flaps. Applicant’s argument of a large gap versus a small gap does not constitute a structural distinction over the prior art.
Applicant has argued on Page 14 of Applicant’s Response that: “Moreover, there is no disclosure of the relationship between the claimed "spacing" and the resulting effect disclosed in Liang032. If Liang032 does not10 recognize that the claimed "spacing" affects the relevant property or result, then the claimed "spacing" is not recognized by Liang032 to be a result-effective variable”.
Examiner’s Response: The very mention of “generally much longer than the dimension” in paragraph [0123] of Liang032 is sufficient to establish spacing as a result effective variable. This phrase implies that Liang032 makes a preference based on the inventor’s experiences of results seen by experimenting with different dimensions.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
