AppHcaHon No.:14J678,557
`Reply dated November 15, 2016
`Response to Office Action of September 28, 2016
`
`REMARKS
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.116 (b) (1), (2) and/or (3) and the reasons discussed
`
`herein, entry of the proposed amendments to the claims is respectfully requested. Claim 1 has
`
`been amended. Claims 1-9 are currently pending in the Application, of which claim 1
`
`is
`
`independent.
`
`Support for the amendment may be found at least in Figure 4 and in paragraph [0035] of
`
`the specification. No new matter is introduced.
`
`Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and timely withdrawal of the pending
`
`rejections for at least the reasons discussed below.
`
`Request for Consideration under the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 Program
`
`Applicants respectfully request consideration of this Application under the AFCP 2.0
`
`program. An AFCP 2.0 Request form (PTO/SB/434) is submitted concurrently herewith.
`
`At least one independent claim has been amended, and the amendment does not
`
`broaden the scope of the at least one independent claim in any aspect. Further, Applicants are
`
`willing and available to participate in any interview requested by the Examiner. The Examiner is
`
`requested to contact Applicants’ Representative at the contact information listed at the end of
`
`the present Reply if it would expedite prosecution in any manner.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicants thank the Examiner for the courtesies extended during the interview of
`
`November 7, 2016. During the interview, the Examiner and Applicants’ representative, Mr.
`
`William L. Brooks, discussed proposed corrections to the drawings and amendments to the
`
`specification to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, discussed below.
`
`
`Reply dated November 15, 2016
`Response to Office Action of September 28, 2016
`
`REMARKS
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.116 (b) (1), (2) and/or (3) and the reasons discussed
`
`herein, entry of the proposed amendments to the claims is respectfully requested. Claim 1 has
`
`been amended. Claims 1-9 are currently pending in the Application, of which claim 1
`
`is
`
`independent.
`
`Support for the amendment may be found at least in Figure 4 and in paragraph [0035] of
`
`the specification. No new matter is introduced.
`
`Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and timely withdrawal of the pending
`
`rejections for at least the reasons discussed below.
`
`Request for Consideration under the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 Program
`
`Applicants respectfully request consideration of this Application under the AFCP 2.0
`
`program. An AFCP 2.0 Request form (PTO/SB/434) is submitted concurrently herewith.
`
`At least one independent claim has been amended, and the amendment does not
`
`broaden the scope of the at least one independent claim in any aspect. Further, Applicants are
`
`willing and available to participate in any interview requested by the Examiner. The Examiner is
`
`requested to contact Applicants’ Representative at the contact information listed at the end of
`
`the present Reply if it would expedite prosecution in any manner.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicants thank the Examiner for the courtesies extended during the interview of
`
`November 7, 2016. During the interview, the Examiner and Applicants’ representative, Mr.
`
`William L. Brooks, discussed proposed corrections to the drawings and amendments to the
`
`specification to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, discussed below.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 14/678,557
`Reply dated November 15, 2016
`Response to Office Action of September 28, 2016
`
`The Examiner recommended instead amending claim 1 to cancel reference to the
`
`claimed formula while reciting distinctions between the present invention and the structure
`
`shown FIG. 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0117941, applied for by
`
`Nagatomo (“Nagatomo”), cited in the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections discussed below.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 1 12, First Paragraph
`
`Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply
`
`with the enablement requirement. Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection for at least the
`
`following reason.
`
`On page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner specifically refers to formula (1) recited in
`
`claim 1 as allegedly not being enabled by the specification and FIG. 9. Without commenting as
`
`to the merits of this assertion, Applicants have canceled recitation of formula (1) from claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`paragraph rejection of claims 1-9.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly
`
`unpatentable over Nagatomo in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0080579,
`
`applied for by Scherer (“Scherer”). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection for at least the
`
`following reasons.
`
`Nagatomo discloses a photonic crystal structure having a first member 1010 having a
`
`first refractive index n1. As shown in FIGS. 1, 2A, 28, 3, and 5 and paragraph [0042], third
`
`members 1015, relied upon by the Examiner to teach the claimed convex members (Office
`
`Action, page 5), are disposed in holes 1016 formed in the upper surface of first member 1010.
`
`The upper portions of the third members 1015 do not extend above the entire surrounding upper
`
`
`
`Application No.: 14/678,557
`Reply dated November 15, 2016
`Response to Office Action of September 28, 2016
`
`surface of first member 1010. Scherer fails to cure this deficiency in Nagatomo. Thus, the
`
`combination of Nagatomo and Scherer fails to disclose at least the following feature recited in
`
`claim 1, as amended:
`
`photodetectors arranged on the substrate, each photodetector comprising a
`
`semiconductor having a plurality of convex portions extending above an entire remaining
`
`upper surface of the semiconductor... (emphasis added)
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`rejection of claim 1. Since claims 5-7 depend from claim 1 they should also be allowable for at
`
`least the same reasons supporting allowance of claim 1. Since none of the other prior art of
`
`record, whether taken alone or in any combination, discloses or suggests all the features of the
`
`claimed invention, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claim 1, and all the claims
`
`that depend therefrom, are allowable.
`
`Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable
`
`over Nagatomo in view of Scherer as applied to claims above, and further in view of US. Patent
`
`No. 6,597,482, issued to Chung, et al. (“Chung”). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection
`
`for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1
`
`is allowable over Nagatomo and Scherer, and
`
`Chung fails to cure the deficiencies of Nagatomo and Scherer noted above with regard to claim
`
`1. Since claims 2-4 depend from an allowable claim 1, they should also be allowable for at least
`
`the same reasons supporting allowance of claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`rejection of claims 2-4.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 14/678,557
`Reply dated November 15, 2016
`Response to Office Action of September 28, 2016
`
`Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable
`
`over Nagatomo in view of Scherer as applied to claims above, and further in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2004/0195598, applied for by Tysoe, et al. (“Tysoe”). Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse this rejection for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1
`
`is allowable over Nagatomo and Scherer, and
`
`Tysoe fails to cure the deficiencies of Nagatomo and Scherer noted above with regard to claim
`
`1. Since claims 8 and 9 depend from an allowable claim 1, they should also be allowable for at
`
`least the same reasons supporting allowance of claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`rejection of claims 8 and 9.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 14/678,557
`Reply dated November 15, 2016
`Response to Office Action of September 28, 2016
`
`W
`
`A full and complete response has been made to the pending Office Action, and all of the
`
`stated grounds for rejection have been overcome or rendered moot. As such, all pending claims
`
`are allowable, and the application is in condition for allowance.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact Applicants’ undersigned representative at the number
`
`below if it would expedite prosecution. Prompt and favorable consideration of this Reply is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Wi||iam L. Brooks/
`
`William L. Brooks
`
`Reg. No. 34,129
`
`Date: November 15, 2016
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 58027
`
`H.C. Park & Associates, PLC
`1894 Preston White Drive
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`Tel: 703-288—5105
`Fax: 703-288—5139
`HCPNVLB/mkc
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
