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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-35 are cancelled. Claims 36-50 are pending. Claim 36 is an independent claim. Claims 46-50 are withdrawn. Claims 36-45 are currently examined on the merits.
Specification
The amendment filed 02/16/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: for example, “[0032] … The heat shield 140 is configured such that heat shield 140 is at the same axial position relative to the pull axis A when the crucible 102 is at the lowest position (FIG. 1), during ingot growth (FIG. 2), and when the crucible 102 is in the terminal position (FIG. 3).” Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 36-45 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 recites "... first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis when the crucible is at the lowest position, during ingot growth, and when the crucible is in the terminal position, the first heat shield and side insulation being separated from each other by a gap…", which is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 36 “…the crucible being moveable along a pull axis between a lowest position in which a charge of silicon is melted to produce the silicon melt, a seed-dip position at which a seed crystal is initially contacted with the melt to pull the silicon ingot from the melt, and a terminal position at which the silicon ingot is separated from the melt … the first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis when the crucible is at the lowest position, during ingot growth…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear with respect to the crucible position during ingot growth, for example, the instant claim recites the crucible is at the seed-dip position (at which the seed crystal being initially contacted with the melt to pull the silicon ingot/ingot growth), the crucible is at the lower position (at which the charge of silicon being melt), and crucible is at the lowest position during ingot growth. It is also not clear what “the first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 36 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 37-45 are rejected because they depend on claim 36.
The recited in claim 36 “…side insulation … the first heat shield and side insulation being separated from each other by a gap…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the side insulation is related to the previously recited side insulation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 36 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 37-45 are rejected because they depend on claim 36.
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 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 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 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.
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 36-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu et al (JP 09202685 A, machine translation, “Manabu”) in view of Javidi et al (US 20100107966 A1, “Javidi”), Fujiwara Hideki (JP 09208363 A, machine translation, “Hideki”) and Anttila et al (US 20120217446 A1, “Anttila”).
Regarding claim 36, Manabu (entire document) teaches an ingot puller apparatus for producing a silicon ingot comprising a crucible 11 for holding a melt of silicon 13 (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6, abstract, 0007, 0008, 0012-0014, 0034, 0035, 0045), the crucible 11 comprising a container 11a having an inner bottom portion (floor) and a sidewall that extends from the floor (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6), the crucible 13 being moveable along a pull axis between a lowest position in which a charge of silicon is melted to produce the silicon melt (0022, 0027, 0035, 0045), a seed-dip position at which a seed crystal 17 is initially contacted with the melt to pull the silicon ingot from the melt (abstract), and a terminal position at which the silicon ingot is separated from the melt (0049-0050); a growth chamber 22 for pulling the silicon ingot 18 from the melt 13 along the pull axis (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6, 0039); a side heater 12 or 42 disposed radially outward to the crucible sidewall as the crucible travels from the lowest position to the terminal position (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6, abstract, 0021 and 0032), the side heater 12 or 42 having an inner edge an outer edge (figs 1 and 3-6).
Manabu teaches the side heater as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the side heater having a length of 350 mm or less. However, Javidi teaches an apparatus, wherein a heater length is at least about 300 mm (0057 and claim 62), overlapping the instantly claimed length of the side heater. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Manabu per teachings of Javidi in order to provide suitable conditions for melting charge and produce higher value products (Javidi 0006, 0009-0011, 0057). Also, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). It is also well established that that “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Manabu/Javidi teaches the crucible floor as addressed above, and further teaches bottom insulation (bottom portion of insulating 19) (Manabu figs 1, 3 and 5, 0012), but does not explicitly teach a bottom heater disposed below the crucible floor and the bottom insulation disposed below the bottom heater. However, it is a known practice that a bottom heater 7 disposed below the crucible floor (figs 1 and 3); bottom insulation (bottom portion of insulation 8) disposed below the bottom heater 7 as taught by Hideki (figs 1 and 3, 0014-0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Manabu/Javidi by including a bottom heater per teachings of Hideki in order to provide suitable conditions for producing the single crystal with uniform quality in the axial direction (Hideki abstract, 0007-0009 and 0018).
Manabu/Javidi teaches the crucible floor, the side heater, the side insulation and the bottom insulation as addressed above, and further teaches a first heat shield 21/26 disposed directly below the side heater 12 (Manabu figs 1-3, abstract, 0026, 0038-0045), the first heat shield being fixed relative to the pull axis (for example in a horizontal direction) (Manabu figs 1-3), the first heat shield 26 having a length measured parallel to the pull axis that is greater than a thickness of the first heat shield measured perpendicular to the pull axis (Manabu fig 3), the bottom insulation (bottom portion of the insulating 19b) and the first heat shield 26 being separated by a gap disposed above the bottom insulation (bottom portion of the insulating 19b) (Manabu fig 3), the bottom insulation (bottom portion of the insulating 19b) being disposed directly below the first heat shield 26 (Manabu fig 3), and a distance between a first portion of the first heat shield 26 and the pull axis is substantially an equal distance between the inner edge of the side heater 12 and the pull axis (Manabu fig 3), but does not explicitly teach that the distance between a first portion of the first heat shield and the pull axis is less than the distance between the inner edge of the side heater and the pull axis. However, it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Further, Hideki teaches an ingot pulling apparatus, wherein a distance between a first portion of an insulator 8a (first heat shield) and a pull axis is less than the distance between an inner edge of a side heater 6 and the pull axis (figs 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Manabu/Javidi by having a distance between a first portion of the first heat shield and the pull axis is less than the distance between the inner edge of the side heater and the pull axis as suggested by Hideki in order to provide suitable conditions for producing the single crystal with uniform quality in the axial direction (Hideki abstract, 0007-0009 and 0018).
Manabu/Javidi/Hideki teaches the first heat shield as addressed above, and further teaches that the crucible and the first heat shield 26 is movable up and down (Manabu fig 3, 0022, 0024 and 0038-0045), melting the raw material is performed with the heat shield positioned at a bottom (lowest position) of the chamber for efficiently melting the raw material (Manabu 0024), then the crucible is moved so that the heater is positioned above the crucible (Manabu 0045), and a bottom portion of the first heat shield 26/21 (at least a portion of the first heat shield) is below the floor of the crucible (inner bottom portion of crucible/container) (Manabu figs 2 and 3), but does not explicitly teach that a second heat shield that shrouds the ingot such that the ingot passes through an opening formed in the second heat shield, the first heat shield being disposed below the second heat shield. However, Anttila teaches an ingot puller apparatus, wherein a plate 33 (second heat shield) that shrouds the crystal 4 (ingot) such that the ingot/crystal passes through an opening formed in the second heat shield (plate 33), an insulation 41 (a first heat shield) being disposed below the pate 33 (second heat shield) (fig 1, 0080 and 0082), and the crucible is in a lower position during the melting of charge (0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Manabu/Javidi/Hideki per teachings of Anttila in order to provide suitable thermal conditions for melting the raw material and growing the crystal (Anttila abstract, 0080 and 0082).
Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches the first heat shield, the pull axis, the crucible being at the lowest position, the crucible being in the terminal position, pulling into (ingot growth), and the crucible being movable along the pull axis as addressed above, and further teaches a insulating cylinder/wall 19a (side insulation) (Manabu fig 3 0012, 0032), the first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis (Manabu fig 3), and the first heat shield and the side insulation being separated from each other by a gap (Manabu fig 3). As just addressed, Manabu/ Javidi/Hideki/Anttila (Manabu) discloses the first heat shield, the crucible, and the side insulation, similar to the instantly claimed structural feature. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “the first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis when the crucible is at the lowest position, during ingot growth, and when the crucible is in the terminal position”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 37, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that the side heater 11 is fully above the floor/bottom of the crucible 6 when the crucible 6 is in the lowest position (Anttila fig 5, 0094), meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 38, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches the first heat shield and the crucible as addressed above, and further teaches that a portion of the first heat shield 26 is above a bottom of the crucible (Manabu fig 3), the crucible and the first heat shield 26 is movable up and down (Manabu 0022, 0024 and 0038-0045). It is reasonably expected that the first heat shield could be “at least a portion of the first heat shield is above a bottom of the crucible when the crucible is in the lowest position”. It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, Manabu/Hideki explicitly teaches that both the crucible and the first heat shield can be moved in a vertical direction in order to efficiently heat, melt or solidify the raw material and the distance between the side heater and the first heat shield is variable (Manabu 0022, 0024 and 0038-0045), Thus it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Manabu/ Hideki, and obtained various positions of the first heat shield including the instantly claimed “at least a portion of the first heat shield is above a bottom of the crucible when the crucible is in the lowest position” in order to provide suitable positions of the first heat shield, and thus efficiently heat, melt or solidify the raw material for producing a single crystal, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 39, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that the first heat shield (insulation 41) is fully below the floor of the crucible 6 when the crucible is in the terminal position (Anttila fig 1), meeting the claims. It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 40, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that at least a portion of the side heater is laterally aligned with the sidewall of the crucible as the crucible travels between the lowest position and the terminal position (Manabu fig 3; Hideki figs 1/3).
Regarding claim 41, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that the side heater and the first heat shield 8a are separated by a gap (Manabu fig 3; Hideki fig 1).
Regarding claim 42, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that the side heater is separated from the first heat shield as small as about 5 mm (Manabu 0021 and 0027).
Regarding claim 43, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that a susceptor 10 that supports the crucible 6 (Anttila fig 1, 0075), the first heat shield (insulation 41) being fully below the susceptor when the crucible is in the terminal position (Anttila fig 1). It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 44, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that the crucible has an outer diameter of 600mm and an inner diameter of the side/first heater is 700mm (Hideki 0019), e.g., a thickness of the crucible is about 50mm ((700-600)/2); the side heater is above the bottom of the crucible (Hideki figs 1 and 3); since there is also a gap between the side heater and the crucible, the distance between a bottom of the crucible and a bottom of the side heater would be more than 50mm in all positions including in the lowest position. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I. Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 45, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches that the side heater 12 has a thickness, the thickness of the first heat shield 21 (or 26) being at least the thickness of the side heater (Manabu figs 2 and 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Applicant' s arguments that none of Manabu, Javidi, Hideki nor Anttila (specifically Manabu) disclose an embodiment of a heat shield that is both (1) configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis when the crucible is at the lowest position, during ingot growth, and when the crucible is in the terminal position and (2) the first heat shield and side insulation are separated from each other by a gap”, have been considered, but not found persuasive. As applicant already noted, Manabu discloses a shat shield below the side heater (figs 1-3); fig 3 of Manabu further teaches a insulating cylinder/wall 19a (side insulation), and the first heat shield and side insulation are separated from each other by a gap (fig 3). Manabu teaches the heat shield is movable vertically (up and down along an axis (axial position) parallel to the pull axis), and the crucible is movable vertically (up and down along the pull axis); based on this factual teachings of Manabu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Manabu teaches first heat shield being at the same axial position relative to the pull axis since both pull axis of the crucible and the axis of first shield are both vertical (parallel), e.g., the same axial position relative to the pull axis. Specifically, as addressed above, Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila teaches the first heat shield, the pull axis, the crucible being at the lowest position, the crucible being in the terminal position, pulling into (ingot growth), and the crucible being movable along the pull axis as addressed above, and further teaches a insulating cylinder/wall 19a (side insulation) (Manabu fig 3 0012, 0032), the first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis (Manabu fig 3), and the first heat shield and the side insulation being separated from each other by a gap (Manabu fig 3); Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila (Manabu) discloses the first heat shield, the crucible, and the side insulation, similar to the instantly claimed structural feature. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Manabu/Javidi/Hideki/Anttila is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “the first heat shield being configured to be at the same axial position relative to the pull axis when the crucible is at the lowest position, during ingot growth, and when the crucible is in the terminal position”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner' s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kou et al (US 20020148402 A1) teaches an apparatus comprising side insulation/ shield 24/25 and insulator 50 below a heater 44 (fig 1).
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 Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714