Cummins Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2022

2021001838 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/129,762 09/27/2016 Roger D. England 106389-4226 6273 116387 7590 03/08/2022 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER ROBINSON, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROGER D. ENGLAND Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 and 10-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. We enter new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cummins Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of manufacturing an injection mold (see, e.g., claim 17) and an injection mold component (see, e.g., claims 1 and 21) by additive manufacturing (3D printing) and machining. According to the Specification, producing the high-quality molds needed to manufacture precision parts is typically labor intensive and highly technical. Spec. ¶ 3. There are other ways of forming parts such as layer-by- layer using additive manufacturing, such as 3D printing, but forming precision parts using these processes is slow because the layers must be thin and fine. Spec. ¶ 4. Instead of building the precision part using additive manufacturing, Appellant builds an injection mold or a component of the mold (which we will hereinafter collectively call a mold) that have a mold cavity for injection molding the precision parts. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 17. Rather than attempting to form the mold with thin fine layers, Appellant’s method more quickly creates molds and mold components with precise mold cavities by printing layers with extra end stock added at the end of each layer and removing the extra end stock by machining to create the precise mold cavity. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 8, 17. To accomplish this, Appellant uses two 3D computer models. One computer model includes the data points required to 3D print, layer-by-layer, a near net shape mold with the extra stock material on the ends of the layers. Spec. ¶ 15. The other computer model includes the data points required for identifying the extra stock from each layer to be removed to create the precise mold cavity. Id. Figure 1 illustrates a flow diagram of process steps according to the method. Spec. ¶ 15. The method involves obtaining a 3D computer model of the injection mold part (step 101 of Fig. 1), generating a 3D computer model Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 3 of the layers of the near net shape mold including pick-up points identifying the extra stock material to be removed from each layer (step 102), 3D printing the near net shape mold layer-by-layer (step 103), and removing the extra stock material from the near net shape mold layers to form the injection mold cavity (step 104). Spec. ¶¶ 15-16. We reproduce claim 17 to further illustrate the method of the claims: 17. A method of manufacturing an injection mold, the method comprising: providing a three-dimensional computer model of an injection moldable part; designing, based on the three-dimensional computer model of the injection moldable part, a mold having a first volumetric part cavity, the first volumetric part cavity shaped so as to produce the injection moldable part using an injection molding process, the mold including at least one mold component; designing, based on the mold, a near net shape mold, the near net shape mold having a second volumetric part cavity smaller than the first volumetric part cavity, the near net shape mold including at least one near net shape mold component, the second volumetric part cavity designed by using a plurality of pick-up points, the plurality of pick-up points defining positions of features of the second volumetric part cavity; printing, using an additive manufacturing printer, the at least one near net shape mold component; and machining the at least one near net shaped mold component to produce the at least one mold component by removing portions of the at least one near net shaped mold component between each of the plurality of pick-up points and the second volumetric part cavity. Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App.). Claims 1 and 21 do not require the steps of providing a three-dimensional computer model or using those computer Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 4 models to design a mold and near net shape mold. Appeal Br. 39, 42 (Claims App.). These claims recite a step of forming a plurality of pick-up points at the plurality of layers. Id. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections. Ans. 3-4. A. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. B. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. C. Claims 1-7, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0277837 A1, published Nov. 13, 2008) in view of Walker (US 2011/0156304 A1, published June 30, 2011) and Bond (US 6,691,763 B1, issued Feb. 17, 2004). D. Claim 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Liu, Walker, and Bond, and in further view of Freitag (US 5,640,667, issued June 17, 1997). E. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Liu, Walker, Bond, and in further view of Baumann (US 6,145,804, issued Nov. 14, 2000). F. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Liu, Walker, Bond, and in further view of Hoeschsmann (US 6,423,255 Bl, issued July 23, 2002). G. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Liu, Walker, Bond, and in further view of Stewart (US 2004/0128016 A1, published July 1, 2004). Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 5 H. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Walker. OPINION Underlying each of the issues before us in this appeal is a problem of claim drafting. We explain further below. Indefiniteness: New Grounds of Rejection We begin our review with the question of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) (explaining that any § 112 analysis “should begin with the determination of whether the claims satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph”). Because our review of the claims has uncovered indefiniteness issues not discussed by the Examiner, we enter a new ground of rejection per our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject claims 1-8 and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 Of the claims the Examiner rejects as indefinite, i.e., claims 1-8 and 10-16, claim 1 is independent. Ans. 3. For this group of claims, Appellant focuses on the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 22-33. Thus, we select claim 1 as representative for resolving the issue on appeal for claims 1-8 and 10-16. Central to the issue is the language in claim 1 reciting “the pick-up points” as “each being separated from the edge associated with one of the plurality of layers.” We agree with the Examiner that this language is indefinite. But because, as we explain below, the indefiniteness problem is Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 6 more extensive than discussed by the Examiner, we denominate our affirmance of this rejection as a new ground of rejection. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires Appellant’s Specification “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.” Thus, the statute contains two requirements: first, the claim must set forth what Appellant “‘regards as the invention,’ and second, it must do so with particularity and distinctness,” i.e., it must do so with “reasonable precision.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed- not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.” Moore, 439 F.2d at 1235. Under this analysis, claims may appear indefinite when read in a vacuum, but may upon a reading of the Specification disclosure or prior art teachings become quite definite. But the opposite is also true. A claim appearing definite on its face, may take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty when read in light of the description in the Specification. Id. n.2 (citing In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378 (CCPA 1970). “[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Claim 1 does not set forth Appellant’s invention with reasonable precision, i.e., it is not as precise as the subject matter reasonably permits. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. This becomes clear when one considers the Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 7 invention as set forth in the written description of the Specification and depicted in Figure 2. Figure 2 is a side view of near net shape mold 201. Spec. ¶ 17. We reproduce Figure 2 below: As shown in Figure 2, near net shape mold 201 is composed of a plurality of stacked layers 202a to 202h defining volumetric cavity 203. Spec. ¶ 17. Near net shape mold 201 is said to correspond to a coarse model, i.e., a computer model that was used to direct the printing of the layers. Id. Claim 1 requires a step of “forming a plurality of pick-up points at the plurality of layers” and reads as if the pick-up points are structures created during the earlier recited printing step. But it is not clear from the Specification what structures within the layers themselves are pick-up points. Reading the Specification as a whole, it seems to indicate that pick- up points are not structures within the layers but instead data points generated by a 3D computer model. See, e.g., Fig. 1, step 102 (“Generate 3- D Computer Model of Layered Near Net Shape Mold with Machining Pick- up Points”); Spec. ¶ 7 (“The three-dimensional computer model includes information concerning the plurality of layers and a plurality of machining Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 8 pick-up points.”). The data points within the computer model are used in a numerically-controlled machining process to remove material “identified based off of pre-identified points corresponding to locations on the injection molded part.” Spec. ¶ 16. Because the Specification conveys that the pick-up points are information points within a computer model and not a difference in structure within the layers formed by the printing step, the language “forming a plurality of pick-up points at the plurality of layers” is imprecise and does not conform to what Appellant describes as the invention. For this reason, claims 1-8 and 10-16 are indefinite. We now turn to the specific language the Examiner rejects as indefinite. The Examiner’s rejection focuses on the phrase “the pick-up points each being separated from the edge associated with one of the plurality of layers.” We agree with the Examiner that this language contributes to the indefiniteness of claim 1. As to the pick-up points and their relationship to each printed layer, the language of claim 1 is confusing and vague. This is not only because of the confusing use of “plurality” and “each” within the forming step, as determined by the Examiner, but because there is no antecedent basis for “the pick-up point” as recited in the removing step and also because the further phrase in the removing step, “the plurality of pick- up points identify a portion of each layer,” is unreasonably imprecise. How the pick-up points relate to the layers is so unclear that the scope of what the claim encompasses cannot be discerned. Appellant contends that the ordinary artisan would understand claim 1, “when considered as a whole, to describe an arrangement as shown in Figure 2.” Appeal Br. 23. But the Specification describes Figure 2’s Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 9 embodiment as an example. Although claim phrases can sometimes be rendered definite or be defined through examples in the Specification, when the Specification doesn’t give adequate referents for the words of the claims, the examples will not suffice. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is the situation here. In the present case, the language in the claim makes the claim more expansive than what is shown in Figure 2 and described in the Specification, and just how the pick- up points relate to the plurality of layers is unclear. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. As to the word “edge” used in the phrase “the pick-up points each being separated from the edge associated with one of the plurality of layers,” we agree with Appellant that “the edge” is reasonably precise given that the printing step requires “the edge” be “contiguous with the volumetric part cavity.” Appeal Br. 39. As shown in Figure 2, each layer 202 has a vertical edge that is contiguous with volumetric part cavity 203. Thus, we read “the edge associated with one of the plurality of layers” as the vertical edge of one layer. But how each pick-up point is “separated” from this one edge is unclear. In the phrase “the pick-up points each being separated from the edge associated with one of the plurality of layers,” “the pick-up points” has antecedent basis in the earlier recited “a plurality of pick-up points.” Thus, “the pick-up points” must be read as the multiple pick-up points of “a plurality of pick-up points at the plurality of layers.” Thus, to meet the claims, all of those multiple pick-up points must be separated from that single designated layer edge. But there are no referents in the claim, or in the Specification disclosure, identifying the designated edge or which pick-up Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 10 points are intended to be separated from a single designated edge. This makes the claim unreasonably imprecise. According to the above analysis, the dependent claims are indefinite due to their dependence on claim 1. We have not further reviewed the dependent claims for definiteness, we instead leave that task to the Examiner. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected as indefinite. Claims 17-20 We also reject claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. 17. A method of manufacturing an injection mold, the method comprising: providing a three-dimensional computer model of an injection moldable part; designing, based on the three-dimensional computer model of the injection moldable part, a mold having a first volumetric part cavity, the first volumetric part cavity shaped so as to produce the injection moldable part using an injection molding process, the mold including at least one mold component; designing, based on the mold, a near net shape mold, the near net shape mold having a second volumetric part cavity smaller than the first volumetric part cavity, the near net shape mold including at least one near net shape mold component, the second volumetric part cavity designed by using a plurality of pick-up points, the plurality of pick-up points defining positions of features of the second volumetric part cavity; printing, using an additive manufacturing printer, the at least one near net shape mold component; and machining the at least one near net shaped mold component to produce the at least one mold component by removing portions of the at least one near net shaped mold Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 11 component between each of the plurality of pick-up points and the second volumetric part cavity. Appeal Br. 41 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Claim 17 does not conform to what Appellant regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites that “the plurality of pick-up points [define] positions of features of the second volumetric part cavity.” According to the written description, these pick-up points correspond “to locations on the injection molded part.” Spec. ¶ 16. The locations on the injection molded part correspond to the first volumetric cavity, not the second volumetric cavity. See Claim 17 (“designing . . . a mold having a first volumetric part cavity, the first volumetric part cavity shaped so as to produce the injection moldable part using an injection molding process”). Because claim 17 recites that “the plurality of pick-up points [define] positions of features of the second volumetric part cavity,” the step of “machining the at least one near net shaped mold component to produce the at least one mold component by removing portions of the at least one near net shaped mold component between each of the plurality of pick-up points and the second volumetric part cavity,” becomes illogical. If the pick-up points define positions of features of the second volumetric part cavity, there is no material to remove between the pick-up points and the second volumetric cavity. Alternatively, it is unclear what structures of the second volumetric part cavity are “features” whose positions are defined by pick-up points. For the above reasons, we enter a new ground of rejection, rejecting claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Again, we have not reviewed the definiteness of dependent claims 18-20. We leave that task to the Examiner. Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 12 Claim 21 Although the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 21 (Ans. 4), we determine that this claim is, indeed, indefinite. Thus, we enter the following new ground of rejection. We reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite because: (1) the word “adjacent” is confusing in the context of claim 21; (2) which pick-up point is the first pick-up point is unclear; and (3) the second pick-up point is mistakenly recited to be on the fourth segment. We reproduce claim 21 below, highlighting portions that contribute to its indefiniteness: 21. A method of manufacturing an injection mold component, the method comprising: printing a first layer of material, the first layer of material comprising a first segment with a first edge and a second segment with a second edge adjacent the first edge; forming a first pick-up point on the first segment, the first pick-up point separated from the first edge; printing a second layer of material onto the first layer of material, the second layer of material comprising a third segment with a third edge and a fourth segment with a fourth edge adjacent the third edge, the third segment being located on top of the first segment and the fourth segment being located on top of the second segment; forming a second pick-up point on the fourth segment, the second pick-up point separated from the third edge; removing a first portion of the third segment between the third edge and the second pick-up point; and removing a second portion of the first segment between the first edge and the first pick-up point after removing the first portion. Appeal Br. 42 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 13 We attempt to map the claim to Figure 2 below: The reproduced figure is an annotated and cleaned up version of Appellant’s Figure 2 identifying the first layer and second layer and their subparts as set forth in claim 21. The above annotated figure depicts a first layer with two segments. The first segment resides on one side of cavity 203 and the second segment resides on the other side of cavity 203. Atop the first layer is depicted a second layer. The second layer also has two segments, a third segment and a fourth segment. The third segment resides atop the first segment and the fourth segment resides atop the second segment. The first segment has a first edge and a first pick-up point separated from the first edge. The other segments also have edges. There is also a second pick-up point that, as recited in the claim, is on the fourth segment. The printing step of claim 21 recites that the first layer has a first segment with a first edge and a second segment with a second edge adjacent the first edge. This language is confusing. In Appellant’s Summary of Claimed Subject Matter (Appeal Br. 13-14), Appellant identifies these two segments as segments on opposite sides of cavity 203, but the word Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 14 “adjacent” would seem to require the segments be next to or adjoining each other and not be separated by a cavity. The “adjacent” language is also confusing in the recitation requiring the third and fourth segments be adjacent. Next, we note that claim 21 recites forming a first pick-up point on the first segment. Figure 2 depicts two pick-up points on the first segment, one on the top surface and one on the bottom surface. It appears that the claim refers to the pick-up point on the top surface, but it is unclear. The claim also requires a second pick-up point be on the fourth segment, but it appears that the second pick-up point is meant to be on the third segment. We come to this conclusion because there is a step of “removing a first portion of the third segment between the third edge and the second pick-up point.” For the above reasons, we determine claim 21 is indefinite. Additionally, claim 21 has the same problem as claim 1’s forming step. Like claim 1, claim 21 recites forming the pick-up points on the printed layers, but the Specification identifies pick-up points as coordinates within a computer model. The pick-up points are data points, not structures of the printed layers. Thus, as evidenced by the Specification, Appellant is not claiming what Appellant regards as the invention. And, thus, the claim does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). And we enter a new ground of rejection on that basis. Written Descriptive Support The Examiner also rejects claims 1-8 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written descriptive support, again concentrating on the language “the pick-up points each being separated from the edge associated Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 15 with one of the plurality of layers.” Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). Given that, as we explained above, the claim fails to be directed to the subject matter Appellant regards as the invention, i.e., the use of pick-up points in a computer model to identify the portion of each layer that is to be removed by subtractive manufacturing or machining, we agree with the Examiner that written description is lacking. Appellant contends that their Figure 2 and Specification paragraphs 15 and 18 provide support (Appeal Br. 18-21), but those paragraphs indicate that the plurality of layers are layers of a computer model with the pick-up points “identifying the portion of each layer that is to be removed via subtractive manufacturing or machining to expand the volumetric cavity 203 into a precise model of the at least a portion of the injection moldable part.” Spec. ¶¶ 15, 18. These pick-up points 204 may “include features formed in the volumetric cavity 203 that are used to define positions of features of the volumetric cavity 203 within orthogonal datum planes,” i.e., as a piece of information in an orthogonal plane coordinate system. Spec. ¶ 18 (emphasis added). The original Specification does not reasonably convey possession of a method with a step of forming pick-up points in printed layers with “the pick-up points each being separated from the edge associated with one of the plurality of layers.” Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for lack of written descriptive support. Obviousness The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 14, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Liu in view of Walker and Bond, rejected claims 8, 11-13, and 16 over those references and additional prior art references, and Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 16 rejected claim 21 as obvious over Liu in view of Walker. Ans. 3-4. Appellant focuses the arguments on the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 21. Appeal Br. 30-37. We will also focus on these claims. Claim 1 Claim 1 is directed to a method of manufacturing an injection mold component. This component is to have a mold cavity that will be used to injection mold at least a portion of an injection moldable part. At its essence, claim 1 requires two steps of manufacturing the injection mold component: (1) a step of printing layers into a shape having a cavity corresponding to a coarse model; and (2) removing material from the layers to enlarge the cavity into a mold cavity, i.e., so the cavity corresponds with a model of at least a portion of the injection moldable part that is to be formed in the mold cavity. In addition to the two steps of manufacturing the injection mold component, the claim recites a step of forming a plurality of pick-up points at the plurality of layers. According to the Specification, these pick-up points are merely data points within a computer model that define the material within the layers that is to be removed. Spec. ¶ 15; Fig. 1. In the context of claim 1, these points merely define the point at which material removal stops. Liu teaches a method of pressing and sintering material by powder metallurgical methods to a near net shape followed by machining to form a mold or mold segment. Liu ¶ 31. Liu also teaches printing layers into a near net shape mold that allows for shrinking during sintering. Liu ¶¶ 33, 36. Thus, Liu provides evidence that it was known to create molds with extra material to be removed later to create the precisely dimensioned cavity Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 17 desired and also provides evidence that it was known to create oversized molds by additive layer printing. Walker teaches forming the face plate of an injection mold by additive manufacturing and removing material (rough machining (Fig. 2:120), machining registration features into the face plate, further machining to reach final tolerances (Fig. 2:160)). Walker ¶¶ 48-49, 52-53. Thus, Walker also provides evidence that it was known to create oversized molds with extra material that is later removed to create the precisely dimensioned cavity desired. Bond teaches an oversized casting of a mold die and ablating the oversized casting until its dimensions are substantially the same as those of a reference CAD model. Bond col. 1, ll. 49-60. Together, the prior art supports the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to print layers to form a near net shape mold (Liu) and remove material to match a precise model of the mold part to be produced by the injection mold component, i.e., to form the mold cavity to its precise tolerances (Liu, Walker, Bond). The process suggested by the prior art inherently has pick-up points, i.e., data points at which the removal process ends. Each of Liu, Walker, and Bond desire to form a mold with a precise mold cavity for forming an injection molded part. And, as Appellant states “the pick-up point is . . . a boundary of the material being removed.” Appeal Br. 35. When removing the layered material as suggested by the prior art to form the desired mold cavity to tolerances as suggested by the references, one is inherently removing material until the pick-up points are reached. Claim 1 requires no more. Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 18 Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Claim 17 To review a rejection for obviousness, “it is essential to know what the claims do in fact cover.” In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). We could discern that claim 1 covered what was rendered obvious by the prior art, but because claim 17 is illogical, we cannot discern what it covers. Thus, we procedurally reverse the rejection of claim 17 as obvious and do not reach its merits. Claim 21 Nor can we discern what claim 21 covers. Thus, we procedurally reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 21 and do not reach its merits. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 and 10-21 is affirmed and new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) entered. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1-8, 10- 16 112 Written Description 1-8, 10- 16 1-8, 10- 16 112 Indefiniteness 1-8, 10- 16 1-8, 10- 21 112 Indefiniteness 1-8, 10-21 Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 19 1-7, 14, 15, 17-20 103 Liu, Walker, Bond 1-7, 14, 15 17-202 8, 12 103 Liu, Walker, Bond, Freitag 8, 12 10 103 Liu, Walker, Bond, Baumann 10 11, 13 103 Liu, Walker, Bond, Hoeschsmann 11, 13 16 103 Liu, Walker, Bond, Stewart 16 21 103 Liu, Walker 213 Overall Outcome 1-8, 10- 16 17-21 1-8, 10-21 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . 2 Procedurally reversed without reaching the merits. 3 Procedurally reversed without reaching the merits. Appeal 2021-001838 Application 15/129,762 20 Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART; 41.50(b)