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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on August 9, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-10 are withdrawn; claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-19 are amended; claims 13 and 15 are canceled; resulting in claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-19 pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in the replacement drawings filed August 10, 2026, the figures shown on pages 7/11 and 10/11 do not include the corresponding Figure labels (i.e., Fig. 7 and Fig. 10, respectively).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-19 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.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of limitations reciting “A pattern-transferred laminate, comprising: … a lower protective film disposed on the first surface of the plastic substrate” and “wherein the exposed pattern coating layer is subjected to second ultraviolet irradiation after removal of the FG film…” together are considered new matter that is not adequately supported by the original disclosure. Based on the disclosure in the instant specification, the present invention does not appear to contain an embodiment in which the lower protective film is included in the laminate after the laminate is subjected to a second ultraviolet irradiation step.
In looking to paragraphs [00110]-[00114] of the as-filed specification, the method for manufacturing the claimed product is said to involve a forming (3D molding) step of forming a 3D-shape portion (curved portion) in a film of plastic under heat and pressure and a step of peeling off the FG film following the forming process, wherein after the peeling-off process, a step of subjecting the pattern coating layer to second UV irradiation is performed. Fig. 7 of the instant invention, shown below, also discloses that the “protective film” is removed before the second UV irradiation step is performed. Given that the upper protective film is shown as being removed in the second step at the top of Fig. 7, the later step of removing the “protective film” is understood as referring to removal of the lower protective film. Based on the disclosure in Fig. 7, the final pattern-transferred laminate which has been subjected to a second UV irradiation step does not appear to contain a lower protective film, as the lower protective film is shown as being removed prior to the second irradiation step.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, given that the disclosure in paragraphs [00110]-[0118] associated with the method shown in Fig. 7 does not expressly discuss the step of removing the protective film after removal of the FG film, it is not clear whether this is a required step in the process of forming the claimed product. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 16-19, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 11.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (CN 113573525, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 11, 16, and 18, Cheng et al. teaches a housing assembly (100; pattern-transferred laminate, external cover product) comprising a shell body (10) formed from a first substrate layer (11; plastic substrate), a second substrate layer (13; lower protective film), and a hardened layer (30; pattern coating layer) formed on the side of the first substrate layer opposite the second substrate layer ([0044], [0050], see Fig. 2 reproduced below). Cheng et al. teaches that the hardened layer provides abrasion resistance to the housing and has resistance to cracking when subjected to bending stress ([0067], [0101], [0109]).
PNG
media_image2.png
269
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The surface of the hardened layer (30) has a textured structure (31; transferred pattern) which forms either a glossy or matte surface depending upon the desired reflection effects ([0066], [0099]). The pencil hardness of the surface of the hardened layer (30) is 3H to 5H ([0073]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 3H to 7H.
It is noted that the limitations reciting “wherein the pattern coating layer has a transferred pattern corresponding to a latent pattern layer of a FG film comprising the pattern layer and a base film layer, wherein the transferred pattern is formed by laminating and squeezing the FG film against the pattern coating layer and performing first ultraviolet irradiation while the FG film remains laminated on the pattern coating layer, wherein, after the first ultraviolet irradiation, the laminate is formed with heat and pressure while the FG film remains laminated on the pattern coating layer to form a three-dimensional curved portion such that the pattern coating layer and the FG film provide a combined thickness during the forming of the laminate thereby reducing stress concentration in the plastic substrate during the forming of the laminate, wherein the FG film is peeled off and removed after the forming of the laminate to expose the pattern coating layer” and “wherein the exposed pattern coating layer is subjected to second ultraviolet irradiation after removal of the FG film” are interpreted as product-by-process limitations relating to the method of forming the pattern-transferred laminate.
The method of forming the product does not determine the patentability of the product unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the claim is directed to a pattern-transferred laminate comprising a plastic substrate, a lower protective film, and a pattern coating layer. The “FG film” recited in the claim is not positively recited as a component of the claimed pattern-transferred laminate but rather is only present in an intermediate structure and is subsequently removed therefrom during the formation of the claimed final product. The only structural features implied by the aforementioned process steps are that the laminate has a three-dimensional curved portion, the pattern coating layer has a transferred pattern present on the exposed outermost surface of the laminate, and the pattern coating layer is cured (i.e., subjected to ultraviolet irradiation).
Cheng et al. teaches a coated laminate having a structure that is substantially identical to the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process limitations. As shown in Fig. 2 above, the housing assembly (100) taught by Cheng et al. has a 3D structure with a three-dimensional curved portion ([0048]), where the hardened layer (30) extends continuously over the 3D curved portion of the housing assembly without a crack at the 3D curved portion, and the textured structure (31) is present on an exposed outermost surface of the 3D curved portion. Cheng et al. further teaches that the hardened layer (30) may be formed by a dual-curing liquid which undergoes a first photocuring step to form a semi-cured hardened layer necessary to prepare a 3D structured housing assembly and a second photocuring step which forms the hardened layer, thereby preventing the hardened layer from cracking during the hot bending process [0067]. Cheng et al. further teaches that the step of imprinting the textured structure (31; transferred pattern) onto the surface of the hardened layer (30) occurs simultaneously with the first photocuring step, where a texture mold is pressed onto the hardened adhesive layer to transfer the textured structure thereto, the first photocuring step is performed so that the hardened adhesive layer forms a semi-cured hardened layer, and the texture mold is then removed ([0093]-[0094]).
The structure taught by Cheng et al. of a pattern-transferred laminate having a three-dimensional curved portion and comprising a plastic substrate, a lower protective film, and an exposed pattern coating layer which is cured and has a transferred pattern present on an exposed outermost surface, resulting from the texture imprinting, first photocuring, hot bending, and second photocuring steps taught by Chang et al., is substantially identical to the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process steps. The burden is therefore shifted to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. As explained above with respect to claim 11, the limitations directed to the FG film being peeled off and removed from the pattern-transferred laminate are interpreted as product-by-process limitations, where the patentability of the product recited in claim 11 is determined by the structure implied by the process. Given that the FG film is said to be removed from the laminated film, the limitation in claim 12 directed to a release force of the FG film is not considered to impart any additional structural limitations to the claimed product. The housing assembly taught by Cheng et al. therefore satisfies all of the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Cheng et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting “wherein second ultraviolet irradiation is performed at an energy dose of 300 to 1,500 mJ” is a product-by-process limitation, which does not determine the patentability of the product unless the method imparts a distinctive structural characteristic to the product. See MPEP 2113(I). In the instant case, the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process limitations is that the pattern coating layer is present in the final product as a solid, cured layer as a result of the second ultraviolet irradiation step. Cheng et al. teaches a similar process in which the hardened layer is formed by photocuring a curable liquid to obtain a layer with high hardness ([0067]), thus resulting in an identical final structure.
Regarding claim 19, Cheng et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above and further teaches that the housing assembly (100; external cover product, exterior cover) can be applied to the outer shell of an electronic device (electronic product) ([0048], [0159]-[0160]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 113573525, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Although Cheng et al. teaches that a pigment can be dispersed in the first resin which forms the first substrate layer in order to produce a desired visual effect ([0008], [0045]), the reference does not expressly teach that the hardened layer (30; pattern coating layer) is colored by adding a pigment or dye.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Cheng et al. by incorporating a colorant such as a pigment or dye into the curable liquid used to form the hardened layer in order to produce a desired visual effect on the surface of the housing assembly.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2016/0227658, previously cited).
Regarding claims 11, 18, and 19, Ma et al. teaches a housing (100; pattern-transferred laminate, external cover product) for an electronic device (1) or for an automotive interior component (3), comprising a substrate (10; plastic substrate) and a composite layer (30) including an adhesive layer (31), an ink layer (33), and a protective layer (35; pattern coating layer) ([0013]-[0015], see Fig. 3 reproduced below). As shown in Fig. 3, Ma et al. teaches that a surface (351) of the protective layer (35) has a three-dimensional (3D) relief pattern (354; transferred pattern) defined by a plurality of projecting structures [0016].
PNG
media_image3.png
340
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although Ma et al. teaches that the substrate (10) may be made of a plastic ([0014]), the reference does not expressly teach that the housing has a lower protective film on the surface of the substrate opposite the composite layer. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Ma et al. by forming a protective layer on the interior surface of the substrate in order to protect the plastic substrate from damage or scratches, for example, when attaching the housing onto an electronic device.
With respect to the claimed pencil hardness of the exposed pattern coating layer, Ma et al. teaches that the protective layer (35) has a pencil hardness of about 1 H/kg ([0015]), but does not expressly teach the protective layer having a pencil hardness of 3H to 7H. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Ma et al. by forming the protective layer to have a higher pencil hardness, such as within the range of 3H to 7H, in order to increase the abrasion resistance or wear resistance of the protective layer.
It is noted that the limitations reciting “wherein the pattern coating layer has a transferred pattern corresponding to a latent pattern layer of a FG film comprising the pattern layer and a base film layer, wherein the transferred pattern is formed by laminating and squeezing the FG film against the pattern coating layer and performing first ultraviolet irradiation while the FG film remains laminated on the pattern coating layer, wherein, after the first ultraviolet irradiation, the laminate is formed with heat and pressure while the FG film remains laminated on the pattern coating layer to form a three-dimensional curved portion such that the pattern coating layer and the FG film provide a combined thickness during the forming of the laminate thereby reducing stress concentration in the plastic substrate during the forming of the laminate, wherein the FG film is peeled off and removed after the forming of the laminate to expose the pattern coating layer” and “wherein the exposed pattern coating layer is subjected to second ultraviolet irradiation after removal of the FG film” are interpreted as product-by-process limitations relating to the method of forming the pattern-transferred laminate.
The method of forming the product does not determine the patentability of the product unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the claim is directed to a pattern-transferred laminate comprising a plastic substrate, a lower protective film, and a pattern coating layer. The “FG film” recited in the claim is not positively recited as a component of the claimed pattern-transferred laminate but rather is only present in an intermediate structure and is subsequently removed therefrom during the formation of the claimed final product. The only structural features implied by the aforementioned process steps are that the laminate has a three-dimensional curved portion, the pattern coating layer has a transferred pattern present on the exposed outermost surface of the laminate, and the pattern coating layer is cured (i.e., subjected to ultraviolet irradiation).
Ma et al. teaches a coated laminate having a structure that is substantially identical to the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process limitations. As shown in Fig. 3 above, the housing (100; pattern-transferred laminate) taught by Ma et al. has a structure with a three-dimensional curved portion, where the composite layer (30) including the protective layer (35; pattern coating layer) extends continuously over the 3D curved portion of the housing without a crack at the 3D curved portion, and the relief pattern (354; transferred pattern) is present on an exposed outermost surface of the 3D curved portion. Ma et al. further teaches that the composite layer (30) including the protective layer (35) may be formed by coating a bearing film (20) with a molten acrylic resin which is cooled to form a semi-cured protective layer which remains soft and not fully solidified, followed by placing the softened bearing film with the semi-cured composite layer on the substrate in a clamping assembly (45) having a female mold (41) and a male mold (43), and finally irradiating the semi-cured composite layer with an ultraviolet light source (432) to fully cure the protective layer (35) ([0019]-[0026], Figs. 4-7). In the above process, the bearing film (20) has a 3D relief pattern (23) which is depressed into the acrylic resin when the bearing film is coated with the molten acrylic resin, so that a 3D relief pattern (354; transferred pattern) is formed on the surface (351) of the protective layer ([0028], Fig. 7).
The structure taught by Ma et al. of a pattern-transferred laminate having a three-dimensional curved portion and comprising a plastic substrate, a lower protective film, and an exposed pattern coating layer which is cured and has a transferred pattern present on an exposed outermost surface, resulting from the process of coating the bearing film, impressing the 3D relief pattern of the bearing film into the semi-cured protective layer, clamping and molding the bearing film and semi-cured composite film onto the substrate, and fully curing the protective layer via ultraviolet light as taught by Ma et al., is substantially identical to the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process steps. The burden is therefore shifted to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II).
Regarding claim 12, Ma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. As noted above with respect to claim 11, the limitations directed to the FG film being peeled off and removed from the pattern-transferred laminate are interpreted as product-by-process limitations, where the patentability of the product recited in claim 11 is determined by the structure implied by the process. Given that the FG film is said to be removed from the laminate, the limitation in claim 12 directed to a release force of the FG film is not considered to impart any additional structural limitations to the claimed product. The housing taught by Ma et al. therefore satisfies all of the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Ma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting “wherein the second ultraviolet irradiation is performed at an energy dose of 300 to 1,500 mJ” is a product-by-process limitation, which does not determine the patentability of the product unless the method imparts a distinctive structural characteristic to the product. See MPEP 2113(I). In the instant case, the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process limitations is that the pattern coating layer is present in the final product as a solid layer as a result of the UV irradiation. Ma et al. teaches a similar process in which ultraviolet light is emitted to fully cure the semi-cured composite layer, wherein the acrylic resin of the protective layer includes a photoinitiator to promote full curing thereof ([0026]), thus resulting in an identical final structure.
Regarding claim 16, Ma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. As noted above Ma et al. teaches that the surface (351) of the protective layer (35) has a three-dimensional relief pattern (354; transferred pattern) defined by a plurality of projecting structures ([0016]), which corresponds to the claimed decorative pattern.
Regarding claim 17, Ma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above and further teaches that the ink layer (33) can be formed into a pattern and have a desired color to decorate the housing (100) ([0015], Fig. 3), such that the colorant of the ink layer corresponds to the claimed pigment or dye which is added to color the protective layer (35).
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
The previous objection to Figs. 3 and 5 is overcome by the replacement drawings filed August 10, 2026. However, a new objection is raised above with respect to Figs. 7 and 10 in the replacement drawings not including the appropriate Figure labels.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 11-16 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 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claim 11 in the response filed August 9, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 3-7 of the remarks filed August 9, 2026, with respect to Cheng et al. and Ma et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Cheng et al., the Applicant argues on pages 3-5 that Cheng does not disclose or suggest the claimed arrangement or resulting article. In particular, the Applicant first argues that Cheng does not disclose the claimed lower protective film disposed on a surface of a separately identifiable plastic substrate because Cheng’s second substrate layer (13) is formed integrally with the first substrate layer (11). The Applicant also argues that Cheng does not disclose the claimed FG-film-supported sequence or its resulting final-article state because Cheng discloses achieving its final structure by removing a texture mold after curing, not by retaining a separately prepared, pattern-carrying FG film through both first ultraviolet irradiation and heat-and-pressure forming, and removing that film only afterward to expose the pattern coating layer.
These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s first argument, as acknowledged by the Applicant, paragraphs [0076]-[0084] of Cheng et al. disclose that the shell body (10) includes a first substrate layer (11) and a second substrate layer (13). The first and second substrate layers are preferably formed by a co-extrusion process in which a first resin, pigment, etc. are mixed and kneaded to obtain first granules which form the first substrate layer, while a second resin, flame retardant, etc. are mixed to obtain second granules which form the second substrate layer ([0077]-[0080]). The second substrate layer (13) is therefore a separately identifiable layer from the first substrate layer (11) based on the layers being formed from separate first and second granules which are co-extruded, forming separate layers that are adjacent to one another. Based on the layer arrangement shown in Fig. 2, the second substrate layer (13) is taken to correspond to the claimed lower protective film which is disposed on a first surface of the first substrate layer (11; plastic substrate) opposite the second surface of the first substrate layer on which the hardened layer (30; pattern coating layer) is disposed. It is noted that the claimed limitation requiring that the lower protective film is “disposed on” the first surface of the plastic substrate does not imply any particular structure other than the lower protective film being formed or arranged on the first surface of the plastic substrate.
With respect to Applicant’s second argument, as explained in the prior art rejections above, the limitations directed to the claimed method of forming the pattern-transferred laminate are not germane to the issue of patentability of the claimed product. The method of forming the product does not determine the patentability of the product unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the claim is directed to a pattern-transferred laminate comprising a plastic substrate, a lower protective film, and a pattern coating layer. The “FG film” recited in the claim is not positively recited as a component of the claimed pattern-transferred laminate but rather is only present in an intermediate structure and is subsequently removed therefrom during the formation of the claimed final product. The only structural features implied by the aforementioned claimed process steps are that the laminate has a three-dimensional curved portion, the pattern coating layer has a transferred pattern present on the exposed outermost surface of the laminate, and the pattern coating layer is cured (i.e., subjected to ultraviolet irradiation).
Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that Cheng discloses achieving its final product structure by a different process is not persuasive, as the process steps only receive patentable weight to the extent that the process steps impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See MPEP 2113(I). The Applicant’s arguments do not identify any structural characteristics implied by the method that would not be satisfied by the product taught by Cheng et al. Rather, as explained in the prior art rejections above, the structure taught by Cheng et al. of a pattern-transferred laminate having a three-dimensional curved portion and comprising a plastic substrate, a lower protective film, and an exposed pattern coating layer which is cured and has a transferred pattern present on an exposed outermost surface, resulting from the texture imprinting, first photocuring, hot bending, and second photocuring steps taught by Chang et al., is substantially identical to the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process steps. The burden is therefore shifted to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II).
With respect to Ma et al., the Applicant similarly argues that Ma et al. does not disclose a separately prepared and removable FG film having a latent pattern layer and a base film layer, nor does Ma disclose retaining such a film during both a first ultraviolet irradiation and a heat-and-pressure forming operation and removing the film only after formation of a three-dimensional curved portion.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons presented above with respect to Cheng et al. As noted above, the product-by-process limitations directed to the method of forming the claimed pattern-transferred laminate are not germane to the issue of patentability of the claimed product. The method of forming the product does not determine the patentability of the product unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113. As explained in the prior art rejections above, the structure taught by Ma et al. is substantially identical to the structure resulting from the claimed product-by-process steps. The Applicant’s argument that Ma discloses achieving its final product structure by a different process is not persuasive, as the process steps only receive patentable weight to the extent that the process steps impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See MPEP 2113(I). The Applicant’s arguments do not identify any structural characteristics implied by the claimed method that would not be satisfied by the product resulting from the process taught by Ma et al.
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights