DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 6-8), that the prior art rejections of the previous office action 9/10/2025 do not teach the limitation of a filter comprising a microstructured layer on the interior surface formed by sub-wavelength microstructuring of the interior surface of the plasma bulb. Applicant’s main argument appears to be that the layers of Krisl et al. are multiple layers of coatings and that thicknesses of the coatings are not “microstructured” because their small dimension is along the thickness of the layer.
Lemke et al. (US PGPub 2014/0112067 A1) uses the term “microstructure” to be “any mechanical structure having dimensions in the range of nanometers or micrometers, i.e. below 1 millimeter.” (Paragraph 11)
Russell et al. (US PGPub 2007/0232699 A1) uses the term “microstructure” to include “a structure having at least one dimension within a range of about 0.5 nm to about 100 µm.” (Paragraph 66)
Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “microstructure” would include the scope used by the prior art, such as those of Lemke et al. and Russell et al. wherein the structure of the device is small as defined. As the layers of Krisl et al. have thickness dimension falling within these scopes (Krisl et al., Table 1, for example 22.64 to 1020.87 nm; Paragraph 37, 0.1 to 2000 nm thickness range), the filter layer qualifies as being called “microstructured.”
Furthermore, it is not clear to the Examiner that the Specifications use of the term “microstructure” would necessarily not include thickness defined microstructures. Applicant’s Specification (Paragraph 19) recites:
“In another embodiment, the filter layer 104 may include, but is not limited to, a microstructured layer disposed on the interior surface of the bulb 102. For example, the filter layer 104 may be formed by sub-wavelength microstructuring of the interior bulb wall of the plasma bulb 102 such that an antireflection coating is created. In this regard, the antireflection coating may be configured for a specific bandwidth of light (e.g., collectable light emitted by plasma 106). In this regard, the reflective or absorptive coating may be configured for a specific bandwidth of light (e.g., collectable light emitted by plasma 106). By way of another example, the filter layer 104 may be formed by sub-wavelength microstructuring of the interior bulb wall of the plasma bulb 102 such that an absorptive or reflective coating is created for specific bands of light (e.g., VUV).” (emphasis added)
As Krisl et al. (Paragraph 26) selectively reflects light and has microstructure in the thickness, direction, it appears that Applicant’s own disclosed microstructures may include the type of microstructures taught by Krisl et al. That is, the filter of Krisl et al. performs that stated filtering function of being a reflective coating configured for a specific bandwidth of light.
Applicant’s Paragraph 20 does further note that microstructuring such that a significant degree of roughness is achieved may result in a lowering of stress. However, this is in a different paragraph and it is not clear if all of the microstructures described in the previous paragraph are reflective of those described in Paragraph 20.
Applicant argues (Pages 8 and 9), that the microstructured layer may be beneficial to reduce stress.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reducing stress) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not recite a stress relief or surface relief or volume scattering or roughness and therefore this argument is not persuasive with respect to claim 1 because the argued limitation is not in the scope of claim 1. The Examiner notes that claim 10 does include a sacrificial coating, but this limitation is addressed in view of Aurongzeb et al. (US PGPub 2008/0272682 A1), or alternatively further in view of Parham et al. (USPN 4,949,005 A).
Applicant argues (Pages 8 and 9) that the stacks 420 of Espiau may increase the stress on the multilayer coating. However, this appears to be mere speculation. Furthermore, Espiau teaches the element 420 to conduct heat away from bulb 450 and to heat sink 410 (Paragraph 31).
Furthermore, the portion of the claim cited by Applicant is to “the filter is thermally coupled to a thermal management sub-system.” Espiau teaches (Fig. 5) that the bulb wall 450 is thermally coupled to a thermal management sub- system, wherein the thermal management sub-system includes a heat exchanger 420 (Paragraph 31, 420 conducts heat away from bulb 450) and a heat sink 410 (Paragraph 31), wherein the bulb wall transfers heat to the heat sink via the heat exchanger (Paragraph 31) in order to maintain bulb wall integrity (Paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a thermal management subsystem including heat exchange and heat sink in order to transfer heat away from the bulb wall in order to maintain bulb wall integrity, as taught by Espiau. Since the filter layer is disposed on the interior of the bulb wall (see modification in view of Chowdhury et al.), heat from the filter will be conducted to the bulb wall and indirectly to the heat exchanger and heat sink.
Claim Objections
The amendments filed 11/24/2025 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the claims stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. (US PGPub 2010/0264820 A1) in view of Espiau (US PGPub 2007/0236119 A1) and Krisl et al. (US PGPub 2002/0195943 A1, hereinafter Krisl ‘943) and Dierks et al. (USPN 5,608,227 A) and Kogelschatz et al. (USPN 5,194,740 A) and Chowdhury et al. (US PGPub 2005/0127840 A1) and Yokota et al. (US PGPub 2011/0085337 A1).
As to claim 1, Sumitomo et al. discloses (Fig. 1) a plasma cell comprising: a plasma bulb 3 configured to contain a gas (Paragraphs 49 and 56, at least mercury) suitable for generating a plasma (Paragraph 48), the plasma bulb 3 being substantially transparent to light emanating from a pump laser configured to sustain the plasma within the plasma bulb, wherein the collectable spectral region of illumination emitted by the plasma comprises ultraviolet light (Paragraphs 57 and 27, 365 nm).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sumitomo et al.
Sumitomo et al. discloses (Fig. 1) that the plasma bulb 3 transmits at least a portion of a collectable spectral region of illumination emitted by the plasma (Paragraph 57, 365 nm emitted to outside of 31), but does not explicitly state that the bulb wall is transparent to at least a portion of a collectable spectral region of illumination emitted by the plasma.
Espiau teaches (Fig. 1b, Paragraph 25) making the bulb 30 optically transparent to allow light 40 to escape the bulb.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Espiau
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the bulb transparent to the desired light emission in order to allow light to escape and since it is taught as a suitable optical material and the selection from among known suitable materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau is silent as to Applicant’s claimed microstructured filter on the bulb.
Krisl ‘943 teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) a microstructured (Table 1, layers have microstructured thickness) multilayer thin film optical interference filter coating applied to a surface of the bulb 12 (Paragraph 28) that selectively reflects a significant portion of the light back to the plasma in order to improve energy efficiency (Paragraphs 26, 42 and 46) by targeting the filter coating to have reflectivity at a desired wavelength range (Paragraph 34) that is useless or detrimental for an application (Paragraph 42).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Krisl et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
370
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Krisl et al.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a multilayer thin film optical interference filter coating on the plasma bulb in order to improve energy efficiency by reflecting back light that is useless or detrimental, as taught by Krisl ‘943
Sumitomo et al. discloses that the emission from the plasma is 365 nm by mercury (Paragraph 57). Furthermore, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 teach the general technique of reflecting back useless or detrimental light by a multilayer thin film optical interference filter coating (see modification in view of Krisl ‘943), but Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 does not explicitly recite how to apply that to the type of lamp of Sumitomo et al.
Dierks et al. teaches (Fig. 1) a lamp that emits 365 nm by mercury emission (Col.2, lines 50-54) and that radiation below 330 nm is absorbed by glass to cause heating (Col. 2, lines 19-21) and that radiation below 300 nm leads to radiation damage in the glasses (Col. 2, lines 26-27).
PNG
media_image5.png
272
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dierks et al.
Kogelschatz et al. teaches mercury emitting in the 185, 254, 295-315 nm range in addition to the 365 nm emission. (Col. 3, Table)
Therefore, since it is known that emission below 330 nm is detrimental, as taught by Dierks et al. and that mercury emits in the 185-315 nm range as taught by Kogelschatz et al., it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the technique taught by Krisl ‘943 to include a multilayer thin film optical interference filter coating that specifically reflects back light in the 185 to 330 nm range in order to apply the desired improvement in energy efficiency taught by Krisl ‘943 to the type of device of Sumitomo et al.
As to the reflected light from the filter by vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) light, the examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art that VUV light is in the range of about 10-200 nm. Therefore, since the filter reflects light at 185 nm, it reflects at least a portion of vacuum ultraviolet light emitted by the plasma.
As to the filter layer being disposed on an interior surface of the plasma bulb, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. discloses that the filter may be applied to any surface in the lamp which surrounds the plasma, such as the lamp tube (Paragraph 28), but does not explicitly state that the filter layer is disposed on an interior surface of the plasma bulb.
Chowdhury et al. discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a multilayer optical interference filter coating 40 (Paragraph 29) is provided as on the outside (Paragraph 49) or as on the inside (Paragraph 49) of the bulb 50, thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art.
PNG
media_image6.png
542
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chowdhury et al.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the filter layer as disposed on an interior surface of the plasma bulb instead of as disposed on an exterior surface of the plasma bulb, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. does not explicitly teach that the filter layer is configured to transmit the light emanating from the pump laser.
Yokota et al. teaches (Fig. 1) the tube 1 being made from a material that is transmissive to entering light from the laser and transmissive to exiting light emitted by the gas. (Paragraph 38)
PNG
media_image7.png
428
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yokota et al.
Since the filter is designed to be transmissive to light except for the target light (Krisl ‘943 Fig. 2, Paragraphs 39 and 42) and the filter is disposed on the plasma bulb to surround the plasma (Krisl ‘943 Paragraph 28) and would therefore, similarly to the bulb, be in the light traveling path between the laser and the plasma, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the filter transmissive to the light from the laser, in a similar manner as the bulb is transmissive, as taught by Yokota et al., as doing otherwise would interfere with the functionality of the device by preventing light from the laser from reaching the plasma.
Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. as applied above does not discuss the filter layer being thermally coupled to a thermal management subsystem.
Espiau teaches (Fig. 5) that the bulb wall 450 is thermally coupled to a thermal management sub- system, wherein the thermal management sub-system includes a heat exchanger 420 (Paragraph 31, 420 conducts heat away from bulb 450) and a heat sink 410 (Paragraph 31), wherein the bulb wall transfers heat to the heat sink via the heat exchanger (Paragraph 31) in order to maintain bulb wall integrity (Paragraph 31).
PNG
media_image8.png
506
504
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Espiau
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a thermal management subsystem including heat exchange and heat sink in order to transfer heat away from the bulb wall in order to maintain bulb wall integrity, as taught by Espiau. Since the filter layer is disposed on the interior of the bulb wall (see modification in view of Chowdhury et al.), heat from the filter will be conducted to the bulb wall and indirectly to the heat exchanger and heat sink.
As to claim 12, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Sumitomo et al. discloses mercury (abbreviated Hg, Paragraph 49), but does not explicitly state that it also includes xenon (Xe).
However an alternative embodiment of Fig. 7 discloses wherein the gas filling is provided as mercury or as mercury with xenon or xenon with argon (Paragraph 72), thus recognizing equivalent structures in the art.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the gas filling as mercury with xenon (XeHg) or mercury with argon (ArHg) instead of as mercury alone, since the selection of from among known suitable alternatives is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 13, the embodiment of Fig. 1 Sumitomo et al. is silent as to the material of the bulb.
The embodiments of Figs. 7 and 12 of Sumitomo et al. teaches the plasma bulb is formed from a glass material (Paragraph 71, silica glass; Paragraph 90, quartz glass).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the plasma bulb formed from a glass material since it is taught as suitable by the other embodiments of Sumitomo et al. and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aurongzeb et al. (US PGPub 2008/0272682 A1), or alternatively further in view of Parham et al. (USPN 4,949,005 A).
As to claim 10, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. is not explicitly recited to include Applicant’s sacrificial coating.
Aurongzeb et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 5 and 6) forming a UV blocking coating as multiple layers in order to reduce stress, thereby forming pores instead of cracks to protect the performance of the coating (Paragraph 24). Aurongzeb et al. teaches that the layers can be the same or different materials with same or different thicknesses (Paragraph 24).
Therefore, since the filter is already made of multiple layers, the top layer would function as a sacrificial layer in that any pore would form instead of cracks, thereby protecting the performance of the filter, as taught by Aurongzeb et al.
Alternatively, should it be found that the filter of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. and Aurongzeb et al. does not comprise a sacrificial coating, Parham et al. teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) forming a coating 20 and then thermally treating it to prevent/reduce grain growth and prevent film removal/peeling (Col. 6, lines 13-55; Col. 7, lines 16-45) wherein the coating is rough and lowers stress by preventing larger crack patterns (Col. 7, lines 16-45).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to alternatively modify the device to thermally treat a coating in order to prevent film removal/peeling by making it form smaller cracks, as taught by Parham et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, or alternatively in further view of Smith et al. (US PGPub 2009/0032740 A1).
As to claim 11, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. teaches (Sumitomo et al. Fig. 1) that the bulb 3 has at least one of a substantially cylindrical shape, a substantially spherical shape (Sumitomo et al. Paragraph 49, spheroidicity), a substantially prolate spheroidal shape (Sumitomo et al. Paragraph 49, spheroidicity, Fig. 1, prolate), a substantially ellipsoidal shape and a substantially cardioid shape.
Alternatively, should it be found that Sumitomo et al. does not disclose the recited shapes, Smith et al. teaches that the bulb (Paragraph 91, chamber) has at least one of a substantially cylindrical shape (Fig. 11, Paragraphs 49 and 151, cylindrical tube), a substantially spherical shape, a substantially prolate spheroidal shape, a substantially ellipsoidal shape and a substantially cardioid shape.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the tube a substantially cylindrical shape since it is taught as a suitable shape by Smith et al. and the selection from among known suitable shapes for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Krisl et al. (USPN 5,138,219 A, hereinafter Kirsl ‘219).
As to claim 14, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. discloses that the glass material of the plasma bulb comprises: a quartz glass (Sumitomo et al. Paragraph 90, quartz glass), but does not explicitly state that the glass material is a fused silica glass.
Krisl ‘219 teaches that quartz is fused silica (Col. 5, line 33).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the plasma bulb from fused silica quartz glass since the selection from among known suitable materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. and Krisl ‘219 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Janos et al. (US PGPub 2006/0055300 A1).
As to claim 15, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. and Krisl ‘219 teaches that the bulb material is fused silica quartz glass, but is silent as to the plasma bulb being formed from a low OH content fused synthetic quartz glass material.
Janos et al. teaches that by minimizing the amount of impurities, degradation can be minimized (Paragraph 17), with the OH impurity content being less than 1000 ppm, preferably less than 10 ppm (Paragraphs 22 and 27).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the fused silica quartz glass to be a low OH content in order to minimize degradation, as taught by Janos et al. With respect to the term “synthetic,” the bulb material is made (synthesized) specifically to have low OH content and therefore is synthetic.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Bahns (USPN 5,345,465 A).
As to claim 16, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. teaches that the gas absorbs light from the pump laser (Paragraph 47), but does not explicitly state that a wavelength of the light emanating from the pump laser is tuned to an absorption line of at least one of the plasma or the gas generating the plasma.
Bahns teaches (Fig. 1) tuning a wavelength of the light emanating from the pump laser 140 to an absorption line of at least one of the plasma 190 or the gas 130 generating the plasma (Col. 1, lines 64-68; Col. 4, lines 27-62) in order to sufficiently excite the gas (Col. 4, lines 27-39).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to tune the laser to a wavelength that is an absorption line of the gas/plasma in order to sufficiently excite the gas, as taught by Bahns.
Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lye (USPN 3,054,921 A) and Mikoshiba et al. (USPN 4,461,978 A).
As to claim 17, Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. is silent as to Applicant’s claimed filter assembly.
Lye teaches (Fig. 2) a filter assembly 36 disposed within an internal volume of the plasma bulb 26, the filter assembly 36 establishing a physical separation from the plasma bulb 26, wherein the filter assembly blocks a selected spectral region of the illumination emitted by the gas in the plasma state when the laser-sustained plasma light source is in operation (Col. 2, line 45; Col. 3, lines 14-16), wherein the filter assembly 36 is formed from a first material (Col. 3, line 35, sapphire) and the plasma bulb is formed from a second material (Col. 2, line 63, quartz) in order to shield the plasma bulb from convection currents to allow operation at a higher pressure and efficiency or reduced load and diminishing ultraviolet light received by the bulb (Col. 2, lines 34-52).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a filter assembly inside of the bulb and separated from the bulb in order to increase efficiency or reduce load and diminish ultraviolet light received by the bulb, as taught by Lye.
Sumitomo et al. in view of Espiau in view of Krisl ‘943 and Dierks et al. and Kogelschatz et al. and Chowdhury et al. and Yokoto et al. and Lye teaches that the filter assembly is made of sapphire (Lye Col. 3, line 35). Smith et al. in view of Lye and Allen et al. and Espiau teach that the filter blocks ultraviolet, but is silent as to blocking vacuum ultraviolet.
However, as seen in Paragraph 39 of Applicant's specification, sapphire absorbs illumination in the vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) band. Furthermore, as seen in Mikoshiba et al., (Col. 1, lines 39-41) that Xe emits vacuum ultraviolet. Furthermore, Kogelschatz et al. teaches mercury emitting in the vacuum ultraviolet (Col. 3, Table, 185 nm) Therefore, it is considered a characteristic material property that the Xe and Hg of the modified device will emit vacuum ultraviolet and the filter assembly made of sapphire blocks said vacuum ultraviolet radiation.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Voronov et al. (US PGPub 2012/0032586 A1) teaches using titanium oxide as the dopant for absorption of VUV radiation. (Paragraph 22)
Jung (US PGPub 2006/0154089 A1) discloses (Fig. 1) an optical coating that reflects UV and infrared radiation while transmitting visible light (Paragraph 29).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875