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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of January 28, 2026 have been fully considered, but are either (A) moot because they pertain to the previously-cited Nakamura and Moe references (rejections based upon these references have been withdrawn; see the new grounds of rejection based upon the newly-cited Sakagami and Masuda references), or (B) not persuasive with respect to the previously-cited Dejneka and Spielberger references.
With respect to the Dejenka and Spielberger references, Applicant argues that these references fail to disclose the newly-recited claim limitation of the independent claims: “wherein the optical filter is associated with an optical density (OD) of 1 or higher in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm” (see pages 7-10 of the Remarks of January 28, 2026).
However, as explained below in the rejections of Claims 13-16 and 18, this claim limitation is met through the disclosures of Dejneka’s FIG. 3B and associated text. As further explained below in the rejections of Claims 1 and 7, Spielberger’s disclosures of “short pass filter” and use of the term “block” or “blocking” (without modifying language such as “mostly blocking” or “significantly blocking”) evidences an OD1 or greater (90% or more) blockage of light across the entirety of 830 nm to 1600 nm, or at the very least, an obvious modification to filter light in such manner.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments against the rejections based upon Dejneka and Spielberger are not persuasive, and rejections based upon these references are maintained.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dejneka et al., US 2020/0399167 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 13, Dejneka discloses: An optical filter, comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a layer that passes light in a visible range (substrate 10 may have a total transmittance from about 4% to about 30% in the visible spectrum from 400 nm to 700 nm; paragraph [0062] and FIG. 1 of Dejneka); and
one or more filter elements (glass-ceramic composition article 100; paragraph [0061] and FIG. 1 of Dejneka; the Office notes that the present claim language does not require the one or more filter elements to be physically separate component(s) from the layer which passes light in a visible range);
wherein the optical filter is absorptive or reflective of light in an entirety of a wavelength range of 830 to 1600 nanometers (nm) (in the graph of FIG. 3B of Dejneka, for the Examples 1 & 2 [Ex. 1, Ex. 2], absorbance is shown for an entirety of the wavelength range from 830 nm to 1600 nm; paragraphs [0055], [0085], [0110] and TABLE 1A of Dejneka); and
wherein the optical filter is associated with an optical density (OD) of 1 or higher in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (in the graph of FIG. 3B of Dejneka, for the Examples 1 & 2 [Ex. 1, Ex. 2], an absorbance of OD1 or higher is shown for an entirety of the wavelength range from 830 nm to 1600 nm; paragraphs [0055], [0085], [0110] and TABLE 1A of Dejneka; the Office notes that for purposes of examination, the phrase “is associated with” will be treated as “has”).
Regarding Claim 14, Dejneka discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein the one or more filter elements comprise a notch filter or a short wave pass filter (the article of Dejneka may comprise a notch filter in that it exhibits a relatively low transmittance at wavelengths about 700 nm to 1200 nm, and comparatively higher transmittance at wavelengths both shorter and longer than this; see, e.g., Ex.1 and Ex.2 of FIG. 3B of Dejneka).
Regarding Claim 15, Dejneka discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein the one or more filter elements comprise a heat absorbance glass or a heat protection filter (article 100 may be a glass-ceramic composition which absorbs at least some infrared light; paragraphs [0055], [0061] and FIGS. 1, 3B of Dejneka).
Regarding Claim 16, Dejneka discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein the one or more filter elements comprise a polymeric matrix on or in the layer (the glass-ceramics can be powdered and introduced as tinted UV and IR absorbing additives that can be employed in laminate glazing interlayer materials, such as polyvinyl butyral [PVB]; paragraphs [0058], [0059] of Dejneka).
Regarding Claim 18, Dejneka discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: further comprising a first reflective or absorptive layer as a first surface of the optical filter and a second reflective or absorptive layer as a second surface of the optical filter (an upper surface of the infrared absorbing article 100 may comprise a compressive stress region 50, and a lower surface of the infrared absorbing article 100 may comprise a compressive stress region of substrate 10; paragraphs [0061], [0066] and FIGS. 1, 3B of Dejneka).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakagami et al., US 2022/0112121 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Sakagami discloses: A device (digital still camera or color video camera having an optical filter, such as layered article 10 described in paragraph [0001] of Sakagami and shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami), comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an image sensor to capture an image using light in a visible range (imaging device or sensing device; paragraphs [0001], [0030], [0044] of Sakagami); and
an optical filter to filter light received by the image sensor (near infrared cut filter glass, such as layer 14 [or the combined layer 14 and absorption layer 15] shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami; paragraphs [0001], [0177], [0178] of Sakagami);
wherein the optical filter passes light in the visible range (Example 7 [Ex.7] in FIG. 1 of Sakagami is shown having a transmittance of approximately 40% to 55% over a substantial portion of the visible light range, i.e., 400 nm to 700 nm);
wherein the optical filter absorbs or reflects light in an entirety of a wavelength range of 830 to 1600 nanometers (nm) (as shown in Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami, transmittance significantly drops off at approximately 700 nm and remains negligible at higher wavelengths; TABLE 1 and FIG. 1 of Sakagami); and
wherein the optical filter is associated with an optical density (OD) of 1 or higher in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (an OD of 1 or higher means a blockage of light [the combination of absorption and reflection] of 90% or more, and as shown in Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami, transmittance is significantly less than 10% at 700 nm and higher wavelengths; TABLE 1 and FIG. 1 of Sakagami; the Office notes that for purposes of examination, the phrase “is associated with” will be treated as “has”).
Regarding Claim 2, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical filter comprises a glass layer (near-infrared cut filter glass, such as the glass 14; FIG. 3 of Sakagami), and at least one of: a notch filter provided on or in the glass layer configured to absorb or reflect the light in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm, or a short wave pass filter provided on the glass layer configured to absorb or reflect the light in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (in Sakagami, the near-infrared cut filter glass, such as glass 14, functions as a short wave pass filter [i.e., short pass filter or “shortpass filter”] because it exhibits a relatively higher transmittance [low absorption] at shorter wavelengths [e.g., below 700 nm], and comparatively lower transmittance [high absorption] at longer wavelengths [e.g., above 700 nm]; see Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 3, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical filter comprises a heat protection filter that absorbs or reflects the light in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (the near infrared cut filter glass of Sakagami further provides a heat protection effect in that it prevents the transmission of near-infrared wavelengths, and further prevents heat-generating light [infrared light] in the wavelength range of 1600 nm to 2500 nm from reaching the image sensor of the imaging device or sensing device; paragraphs [0001], [0030], [0044] and Ex.7 of FIG. 1 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 5, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical filter comprises a first reflective or absorptive layer as a first surface of the optical filter and a second reflective or absorptive layer as a second surface of the optical filter (at least one principal surface of the near-infrared cut filter glass, such as glass 14, may be provided with an absorption layer, such as absorption layer 15, containing a near-infrared light absorber, and thus glass 14 may be identified as the claimed first surface, and layer 15 may be identified as the claimed second surface; paragraph [0013] and FIG. 3 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 6, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical filter comprises one or more antireflective coatings on at least one of: a first surface of the optical filter, or a second surface of the optical filter opposite the first surface (anti-reflection films 12, 18 may be provided at opposite sides of cut filter 14 and absorption layer 15; FIG. 3 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 8, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the device is included in a vehicle sensing system (LiDAR system for vehicle; paragraphs [0002], [0009] of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 9, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the device is included in a camera system (digital still camera or color video camera having the optical filter, such as layered article 10 described in paragraph [0001] of Sakagami and shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami, and see also paragraph [0004] of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 11, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical filter comprises a substrate that is a shortpass filter (in Sakagami, the near-infrared cut filter glass, such as glass 14, functions as a short wave pass filter substrate [i.e., short pass filter or “shortpass filter”] because it exhibits a relatively higher transmittance [low absorption] at shorter wavelengths [e.g., below 700 nm], and comparatively lower transmittance [high absorption] at longer wavelengths [e.g., above 700 nm]; see Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami; although the claim language of the present set of claims uses the terms “short wave pass filter” and “shortpass filter”, the Office understands these terms as simply different names for the same type of filter, i.e., such terms are interchangeable).
Regarding Claim 12, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical filter comprises an antireflective coating on a first side and a heat protection filter on a second side opposite the first side (an anti-reflection film 12 may be provided at a first side of cut filter 14, and an absorption layer 15 comprising a near-infrared light absorber 16 [which thus protects against heat by blocking thermal radiation] may be provided at an opposite side of cut filter 14; FIG. 3 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 13, Sakagami discloses: An optical filter, comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a layer that passes light in a visible range (near infrared cut filter glass, such as layer 14 shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami [or the combined layer 14 and absorption layer 15], wherein Example 7 [Ex.7] in FIG. 1 of Sakagami is shown having a transmittance of approximately 40% to 55% over a substantial portion of the visible light range, i.e., 400 nm to 700 nm; paragraphs [0001], [0177]-[0179] and FIG. 3 of Sakagami); and
one or more filter elements (near infrared cut filter glass, such as layer 14 shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami; the Office notes that the present claim language does not require the one or more filter elements to be physically separate component(s) from the layer which passes light in a visible range);
wherein the optical filter is absorptive or reflective of light in an entirety of a wavelength range of 830 to 1600 nanometers (nm) (as shown in Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami, transmittance significantly drops off at approximately 700 nm and remains negligible at higher wavelengths; TABLE 1 and FIG. 1 of Sakagami); and
wherein the optical filter is associated with an optical density (OD) of 1 or higher in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (an OD of 1 or higher means a blockage of light [the combination of absorption and reflection] of 90% or more, and as shown in Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami, transmittance is significantly less than 10% at 700 nm and higher wavelengths; TABLE 1 and FIG. 1 of Sakagami; the Office notes that for purposes of examination, the phrase “is associated with” will be treated as “has”).
Regarding Claim 17, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein the one or more filter elements comprise a thin film stack on the layer (the absorption layer, such as absorption layer 15, may include a plurality of layers having sub-micron thickness; paragraph [0124] and FIG. 3 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 19, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: further comprising antireflective coatings on a first surface of the optical filter and on a second surface of the optical filter opposite the first surface (anti-reflection films 12, 18 may be provided at opposite sides of cut filter 14 and absorption layer 15; FIG. 3 of Sakagami).
Regarding Claim 20, Sakagami discloses: A camera (digital still camera or color video camera having an optical filter, such as layered article 10 described in paragraph [0001] of Sakagami and shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami), comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an image sensor to capture an image using light in a visible range (imaging device or sensing device; paragraphs [0001], [0030], [0044] of Sakagami); and
a heat protection filter (near infrared cut filter glass, such as layer 14 shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami, which necessarily provides a heat protection effect in that it prevents the transmission of infrared [heat generating] wavelengths; paragraph [0001] of Sakagami);
wherein the heat protection filter passes light in the visible range (Example 7 [Ex.7] in FIG. 1 of Sakagami is shown having a transmittance of approximately 40% to 55% over a substantial portion of the visible light range, i.e., 400 nm to 700 nm);
wherein the heat protection filter absorbs or reflects light in an entirety of a wavelength range of approximately 830 to 1600 nanometers (nm) (as shown in Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami, transmittance significantly drops off at approximately 700 nm and remains negligible at higher wavelengths; TABLE 1 and FIG. 1 of Sakagami); and
wherein the heat protection filter is associated with an optical density (OD) of 1 or higher in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (an OD of 1 or higher means a blockage of light [the combination of absorption and reflection] of 90% or more, and as shown in Example 7 [Ex. 7] of FIG. 1 of Sakagami, transmittance is significantly less than 10% at 700 nm and higher wavelengths; TABLE 1 and FIG. 1 of Sakagami; the Office notes that for purposes of examination, the phrase “is associated with” will be treated as “has”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spielberger, US 5,005,926, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Spielberger discloses: A device, comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an image sensor to capture an image using light in a visible range (radiation sensitive detector, e.g., including camera tubes or the human eye; Abstract and column 2, line 65 – column 3, line 11 of Spielberger); and
an optical filter to filter light received by the image sensor (short pass filter; column 4, line 48 – column 5, line 51 and Figure of Spielberger);
wherein the optical filter passes light in the visible range (transmits the visible portion of the spectrum; column 4, line 48 – column 5, line 51 and Figure of Spielberger); and
wherein the optical filter absorbs or reflects light in a wavelength range of 830 to 1600 nanometers (nm) (short pass filter cutoff at about 690 nm, whereby at least the range of wavelengths 694 nm to 1064 nm are blocked; column 2, lines 16-22 and column 4, line 48 – column 5, line 51 and Figure and Claim 6 of Spielberger).
It is believed that the short pass filter of Spielberger would in fact absorb or reflect at all wavelengths of light between 830 nm and 1600 nm because one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a “short pass filter” (aka “shortpass filter” or “short wave pass filter”) generally transmits light having wavelength below a specified cut off, but blocks transmission of light having wavelength above the specified cut off (see, e.g., column 2, lines 38-52 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,796,889 of Xu et al., column 6, lines 20-32 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,817,060 of Deslandes, and column 2, lines 56-64 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,600,174 of Wang, all previously-cited as teaching references). Thus, a cutoff of 690 nm, as in Spielberger, would indicate that all wavelengths above 690 nm are blocked, which would include all wavelengths from 830 nm to 1600 nm (see column 4, line 48 – column 5, line 51 and Figure of Spielberger).
Nonetheless, Spielberger does not appear to explicitly disclose absorption or reflection across an entirety of the claimed range, nor a specific numerical quantity of such light blockage, such that: wherein the optical filter is associated with an optical density (OD) of 1 or higher [i.e., at least 90% light blockage] in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art because Spielberger discloses the importance of laser protection at wavelengths above the visible range, including 694 nm to 1064 nm [see, e.g., ruby laser corresponding to 694 nm and neodymium yag laser corresponding to 1064 nm] (see Abstract and column 1, lines 5-30 and column 2, lines 11-52 and column 2, line 65 – column 3, line 48 of Spielberger). Spielberger further discloses the possibility of protection for other wavelengths, e.g., “three laser wavelengths” (see column 4, line 56 – column 5, line 7 of Spielberger), and in fact discloses that a wider band of protection is desirable to avoid loss of protection at large angles of incidence, and wherein such wider band does not present problems with loss of useful transmission when such wavelengths are non-visible [i.e., infrared] (see column 4, lines 38-47 of Spielberger).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select absorption/reflection in the entirety of the 830 nm to 1600 nm range for the filter of Spielberger in accordance with providing maximal protection for multiple types of infrared lasers, wherein such protection does not present problems with loss of useful transmission, and to also select at least 90% blockage [OD 1 or higher] in accordance with preventing laser damage (wherein the Office understands Spielberger’s use of the term “block” as indicating at least a 90% or greater blockage, or otherwise a modifying term would have been used by Spielberger, e.g., “mostly blocked” or “significantly blocked”), as evidenced by Abstract and column 1, lines 5-30 and column 2, lines 11-52 and column 2, line 65 – column 3, line 48 and column 4, lines 38-47 and column 4, line 56 – column 5, line 7 of Spielberger.
Regarding Claim 7, Spielberger discloses: wherein the image sensor is degraded or damaged if the image sensor receives light of a threshold intensity in the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (risk of damage to either the human eye or any of the various forms of radiation sensitive detectors, e.g., from laser light such as ruby laser [694 nm] or neodymium yag laser [1064 nm]; Abstract and column 1, lines 5-30 and column 2, lines 11-52 and column 2, line 65 – column 3, line 48 of Spielberger).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagami in view of Rudmann et al., US 2016/0216138 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 4, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 but does not appear to further disclose: wherein the optical filter comprises a polymer substrate or a polymer dye that absorbs or reflects the light in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm.
Rudmann is related to Sakagami with respect to light sensor involving infrared absorption.
Rudmann teaches: wherein the optical filter comprises a polymer substrate or a polymer dye that absorbs or reflects the light in the entirety of the wavelength range of 830 nm to 1600 nm (examples of dyes that that can be added to absorb infra-red light include polymethine cyanine dyes; paragraphs [0018], [0024], [0025] of Rudmann).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polymer dye of Rudmann for the filter of Sakagami because such dye is effective at absorbing [blocking] infrared light, and thus can effectively serve to prevent such light from entering regions where it is undesired [such as image sensor] (see, e.g., paragraph [0025] and FIG. 1 of Rudmann, and compare to paragraphs [0001], [0030], [0044] of Sakagami).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagami in view of Masuda, US 2016/0197112 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 10, Sakagami discloses the limitations of Claim 9, i.e., the use of the filtering device in a camera system (digital still camera or color video camera [e.g., employing CCD or CMOS] having the optical filter, such as layered article 10 described in paragraph [0001] of Sakagami and shown in FIG. 3 of Sakagami, and see also paragraph [0004] of Sakagami), but does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the camera system comprises a smartphone camera system.
Masuda is related to Sakagami with respect to infrared cut filter glass in camera system.
Masuda teaches: wherein the camera system comprises a smartphone camera system (digital still camera, e.g., using CCD or CMOS, in smart phone; Abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0058], [0163] of Masuda).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the filter of Sakagami in a smartphone system such as Masuda because the use of optical glasses such as a near-infrared cut filter glass enables a desired reduction in thickness of a solid state imaging module for portable device, as taught in paragraph [0003] of Masuda.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 11:00AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights