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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 & 21 have been amended to recite “to form a diffuser structure after transfer of the microstructure pattern into the thin film”. The term “diffuser structure” is recited a single time in the specification in the Background of the Invention section at [0002] with a single sentence stating “Polymer-on-glass replication process or stamping processes can be used to create diffuser structures.” This limitation was present in the claims filed on 5/5/25 which were rejected on in the Final Action mailed on 7/29/25 and then the language was deleted in the RCE filed on 10/29/25 without addressing the rejection as it pertained to the limitation.
The Examiner notes that no specific field is discussed in regard to diffuser structures and there is no evidence that the term is a term of art thus the broadest reasonable interpretation is used for determining the scope of the limitation.
The term “diffuser” is defined as “one that diffuses” wherein “diffuses” is defined as “to scatter, to spread, to subject to diffusion by reflection of light by a rough reflecting surface or transmission of light through a translucent material” by Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Thus, if a prior art process produces surface with structures either on or in the surface which would reasonably produce either scattering through reflection by roughness or by transmission said prior art structure will be interpreted as reading on a diffuser structure.
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 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, 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 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 1, 2, 4-8, 11, & 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauliac (US PG Pub 2014/0109785; hereafter ‘785) in view of Caprari (US Patent 4,575,636; hereafter ‘636), Gates et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0117737; hereafter ‘737), and Dhima (Khalid Dhima, Hybrid lithography- The combination of T-NIL & UV-L, Dissertation, 3/25/15; hereafter Dhima). As evidenced by AZ Electronic Materials (AZ Developer 400K, and 421K Inorganic Developers, AZ Electronic Materials, found at https://www.microchemicals.com/dokumente/datenblaetter/info/info_en/info_az_400k_Developer.pdf; hereafter AZ Electronic Materials).
Claims 1 & 2: ‘785 is directed towards a method (title), comprising:
providing a multilayer structure including a substrate, a thin film, and a positive tone photoresist (¶ 14, the substrate comprises multiple layers – i.e. a substrate with a thin film; the photoresist can be a positive photoresist, ¶ 101; Fig. 1a, a substrate with a thin film and a layer of photoresist; see also ¶s 72-80);
providing a mold having a microstructure pattern (Fig. 1b, ¶ 35; see also ¶s 72-80);
applying the mold to the multilayer structure under pressure and temperature (¶s 72-80), wherein the microstructure pattern of the mold is replicated onto the positive tone photoresist of the multilayer structure (¶s 72-80);
removing the mold from the multilayer structure (¶s 72-80), the positive tone photoresist having the replicated microstructure pattern further including a base portion of the positive tone photoresist that does not have the replicated microstructure (a base portion and side walls which read on the microstructured patterns), the replicated microstructure pattern including a first microstructured region and a second microstructured region, the first and second microstructured regions being separated by the base portion, the base portion having an initial thickness (see Fig. 1d; The Examiner notes that the terms “replicated microstructure pattern” and “base portion” are not art recognize terms nor has either term been defined in the specification (see applicant’s specification and Figs. 1A-1B wherein #22 (defined as base portions, ¶ 25, Specification) are a portion of the stamped/molded structure similar to #20b (termed the replicated microstructure pattern, ¶ 24, Specification). The Examiner further notes that the features of the stamped and etched structure of ‘785 can be interpreted to read on the claimed base portions, replicated microstructure pattern, and etched diffuser structures as depicted in the annotated figures below:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each sidewall is termed a microstructure pattern with a base portion between the first and second microstructure region such that the base portion has an initial thickness.);
applying an exposure to the positive tone photoresist by exposure to a replicated microstructure pattern and a base portion (see ¶ 85 & Fig. 1d); and
developing a base portion of the positive photoresist to remove or reduce the first thickness of the entire base portion between the first and second microstructured region (the base portion is completely removed between the walls and a step is produced, see Fig. 1f & ¶ 92; see schematic above);
etching the thin film to transfer a morphology of the replicated microstructure pattern into the thin film (see Fig. 1f & ¶ 92) to form a diffuser structure after transfer of the microstructure pattern into the thin film (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
246
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘785 discloses applying irradiation of the resist through a mask to expose the replicated microstructure pattern and the base portion of the positive tone photoresist (see ¶ 85 & Fig. 1d).
The positive tone photoresist after the removing step and before the developing step having the replicated microstructure pattern includes a base portion of the positive tone photoresist that does not have the replicated microstructure pattern (¶s 84-92).
‘785 does not provide details of the exposure apparatus.
However, ‘636, which is directed towards a flood exposure system (title) for exposing photoresists which is substantially collimated (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the collimated flood exposure apparatus of ‘636 during the process of ‘785 such that the replicated microstructure pattern and the base portion of the positive tone photoresist are exposed by flood exposure with a collimated light source because the exposure source of ‘636 is an art recognized exposure source for photolithography and would have predictably been suitable in the process of ‘785.
‘785 teaches that the substrate can comprise a preprocessed semiconductor with multiple layers and patterns already present (¶ 74) and that the patterns formed can be later filled to form interconnect between layers (¶s 75, 90-91, 93, & 113).
‘785 is silent regarding the specific layer structure present or what layers the interconnects are formed through.
’737, however, is directed towards interconnect structure (title) in the semiconductor field (¶ 45) and discloses an interconnect structure formed through 3 layers comprised of two dielectric material layers with an intervening layer (see #s 14’, 16’, 18’, & 34, Figs. 1F & G; Figs. 1A-1G; ¶s 42-68) wherein the two dielectric layers can be the same material (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a semiconductor with the taught structure of ‘737 in which the substrate comprises at least two dielectric layers of which an interconnect is to be formed through as the particular preprocessed semiconductor wafer during the process of ‘785 because the interconnect structure of ‘737 is an art recognized semiconductor structure that would have predictably been suitable during the process of ‘785.
Thus, the combination teaches a thin multilayer stack comprised of two dielectric layers with an intervening layer wherein the dielectric layers are the same materials (i.e. have the same refractive index).
Therefor it is apparent that the multilayer stack has a periodic refractive index profile.
‘785 is directed towards hybrid lithography using a combination of lithography processes and positive tone photoresist (see ¶s 104 & 101) but does not teach a specific positive tone photoresist or developer to use with the positive tone photoresist.
However, Dhima, which is also directed towards hybrid lithography using the combination of imprint lithography and photolithography (title) notes that AZ 1505 is a known positive tone photoresist comprised of a novolak resin and diazonaphthoquinone which can be used for hybrid T-NIL & UV-L processes (see §5.4, pgs 126-138) and that AZ 400K can be used as the developer when using AZ 1505 (Figure 2.1, pg 10).
As evidenced by AZ Electronic Materials, AZ 400K is an aqueous-alkaline based developer (See Description, pg 1, AZ Electronic Materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use AZ 1505 which is comprised of a novolak resin and diazonaphthoquinone as the specific positive tone photoresist and AZ 400K as the developer during the process of ‘785 because as taught by Dhima, AZ 1505 & AZ 400K is an art recognized positive tone photoresist/developer combination which is suitable in hybrid lithography processes and thus would have predictably been suitable as the positive tone photoresist and developer in ‘785.
‘785 does not teach that the mold is coated with a release agent.
However, Dhima teaches that it is recognized in the art to treat the mold with anti-sticking layers (i.e. release agents) such as fluorooctotrichlorosilane because it facilitates mold and substrate separation (§ 2.2.1, pg 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a release agent to the mold of ‘785 because it is recognized in the art to apply a release agent to the molds to facilitate separation between the mold and substrate and would have predictably improved the mold of ‘785.
Claim 4: ‘785 does not teach that the mold is coated with a release agent.
However, Dhima teaches that it is recognized in the art to treat the mold with anti-sticking layers (i.e. release agents) such as fluorooctotrichlorosilane because it facilitates mold and substrate separation (§ 2.2.1, pg 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a release agent to the mold of ‘785 because it is recognized in the art to apply a release agent to the molds to facilitate separation between the mold and substrate and would have predictably improved the mold of ‘785.
Claim 5: ‘785 does not teach what the mold is made of.
However, Dhima teaches that the mold can be made of Si with a SiO2 layer (i.e. a semiconductor material with a dielectric material layer; §2.2.1, pg 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a Si substrate with a SiO2 layer as the material for forming the mold of ‘785 because it is an art recognized material for forming the molds in imprint lithography and would have predictably been suitable as the material for the imprint mold in ‘785.
Claim 6: The microstructure pattern of the mold is a grayscale pattern (see #120, Fig. 1a), ‘785).
Claim 7: ‘785 does not teach the specific pattern of the mold.
However, it is prima facie obvious to use a random pattern because changes in shape, size and, aesthetics are prima facie obvious.
Claim 8: The step of applying the mold to the multilayer structure is an embossing process (¶s 72-80).
Claim 11: As discussed above, ‘785 discloses that the positive tone photoresist having the replicated microstructure pattern includes a base portion of the positive tone photoresist that does not have the replicated microstructure pattern.
‘785 does not teach the thickness of the base portion.
However, Dhima teaches that the thickness of a photoresist layer for use in a hybrid imprint and photolithography process can have a thickness of 200 nm (i.e. 0.2 µm; pg 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an initial layer thickness of 0.2 µm during the process of ‘785 because it is an art recognized suitable thickness in the field for the initial non-patterned photoresist and would have predictably been suitable for the process of ‘785.
Thus it is apparent that combination teaches that the base portion of the positive tone photoresist that does not have the replicated pattern has a thickness of 0.2 µm.
Claim 13: Dhima discloses that development rates control desired results (see § 3.5, pgs 64-67, Dhima).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the rate of speed of developing the photoresist because it is a result effective variable and it is prima facie obvious to optimize the rate of speed of developing the photoresist to obtain the desired results. "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." See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 14: ‘785 teaches that the development step reduces a thickness of the base portion of the positive photoresist so that a surface portion of the thin film is exposed (see Fig. 1f & ¶ 92).
Claim 15: The process further comprises developing a base portion of the positive photoresist so that a surface portion of the film is exposed (‘785 teaches that the development step reduces a thickness of the base portion of the positive photoresist so that a surface portion of the thin film is exposed. see Fig. 1f & ¶ 92).
Claim 16: The step of etching the thin film is performed by reactive ion etching (¶ 92).
Claim 17: ‘785 teaches that the etching process removes both the photoresist and etches the thin film (claim 33) but does not teach that the etching removes any remaining positive tone photoresist from the multilayer structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the etch process to remove the remaining photoresist from the multilayer structure because it is an art recognized means for removing the remaining photoresist which would have predictably cleaned and prepared the multilayer structure for further processing.
Claim 18: The etched microstructure pattern in the thin film is opposite in phase to the microstructure pattern of the mold (see Figs. 1a-1f, ‘785).
Claim 19: The replicated microstructure pattern in the positive tone photoresist is the same as the microstructure pattern of the mold and is opposite in phase/polarity (¶s 84-92 & Figs. 1a-g).
Claim 20: The etched microstructure pattern in the thin film is the same in terms of phase/polarity as the replicated microstructure pattern in the positive tone photoresist (see Figs. 1a-1f, ‘785).
‘785 teaches that the etching can have different selectivity for the thin film layer and the positive tone photoresist such that different aspect ratios are obtained (i.e. the etched microstructure pattern and replicated microstructure pattern have different aspect ratios; ¶ 28).
Claim 21: ‘785 is directed towards a method (title), comprising:
providing a multilayer structure including a substrate, a thin film, and a positive tone photoresist having a first thickness (¶ 14, the substrate comprises multiple layers – i.e. a substrate with a thin film; the photoresist can be a positive photoresist, ¶ 101; Fig. 1a, a substrate with a thin film and a layer of photoresist; see also ¶s 72-80);
providing a mold having a microstructure pattern (Fig. 1b, ¶ 35; see also ¶s 72-80);
applying the mold to the multilayer structure under pressure and temperature (¶s 72-80), wherein the microstructure pattern of the mold is replicated onto the positive tone photoresist of the multilayer structure (¶s 72-80, Fig. 1a);
removing the mold from the multilayer structure (¶s 72-80), the positive tone photoresist having the replicated microstructure pattern further including a base portion of the positive tone photoresist that does not have the replicated microstructure pattern, the base portion having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness (¶s 72-80, Fig. 1b and annotated Fig 1b);
PNG
media_image2.png
269
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
applying an exposure to the positive tone photoresist by exposure to a replicated microstructure pattern and a base portion (see ¶ 85 & Fig. 1d);
developing a base portion of the positive photoresist so that a surface portion of the film is exposed (‘785 teaches that the development step reduces a thickness of the base portion of the positive photoresist so that a surface portion of the thin film is exposed. see Fig. 1f & ¶ 92);
wherein the replicated microstructure pattern includes a first microstructured region and a second microstructured region, the first microstructured region and the second microstructured region being separated by the base portion, the base portion being disposed on opposing sides of both the first microstructured region and the second microstructured region, the entire replicated microstructure pattern and the portion being replicated microstructure pattern and base portion being exposed by the flood exposure (the process depicted in Figs. 1a-1f is a portion of the entire imprint process as discussed in Fig. 2 and ¶ 78 and therefore when considering the structure of the entire wafer and the locations disclosed in Fig. 2 for features 116 it is apparent that the base portion is disposed on opposing sides of 2 microstructure regions and the entire surface is exposed to the exposure); and
etching the thin film to transfer a morphology of the replicated microstructure pattern into the thin film (see Fig. 1f & ¶ 92) to form a diffuser structure after transfer of the microstructure pattern into the thin film (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
246
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘785 discloses applying irradiation of the resist through a mask to expose the replicated microstructure pattern and the base portion of the positive tone photoresist (see ¶ 85 & Fig. 1d).
The positive tone photoresist after the removing step and before the developing step having the replicated microstructure pattern includes a base portion of the positive tone photoresist that does not have the replicated microstructure pattern (¶s 84-92).
The Examiner notes that the terms “replicated microstructure pattern” and “base portion” are not art recognize terms nor has either term been defined in the specification (see applicant’s specification and Figs. 1A-1B wherein #22 (defined as base portions, ¶ 25, Specification.) are a portion of the stamped/molded structure similar to #20b (termed the replicated microstructure pattern, ¶ 24, Specification).
The Examiner further notes that the features of the stamped structure of ‘785 can be interpreted to read on the claimed base portions and replicated microstructure pattern as depicted in the annotated figures below:
PNG
media_image3.png
246
883
media_image3.png
Greyscale
‘785 does not provide details of the exposure apparatus.
However, ‘636, which is directed towards a flood exposure system (title) for exposing photoresists which is substantially collimated (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the collimated flood exposure apparatus of ‘636 during the process of ‘785 such that the replicated microstructure pattern and the base portion of the positive tone photoresist are exposed by flood exposure with a collimated light source because the exposure source of ‘636 is an art recognized exposure source for photolithography and would have predictably been suitable in the process of ‘785.
‘785 teaches that the substrate can comprise a preprocessed semiconductor with multiple layers and patterns already present (¶ 74) and that the patterns formed can be later filled to form interconnect between layers (¶s 75, 90-91, 93, & 113).
‘785 is silent regarding the specific layer structure present or what layers the interconnects are formed through.
’737, however, is directed towards interconnect structure (title) in the semiconductor field (¶ 45) and discloses an interconnect structure formed through 3 layers comprised of two dielectric material layers with an intervening layer (see #s 14’, 16’, 18’, & 34, Figs. 1F & G; Figs. 1A-1G; ¶s 42-68) wherein the two dielectric layers can be the same material (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a semiconductor with the taught structure of ‘737 in which the substrate comprises at least two dielectric layers of which an interconnect is to be formed through as the particular preprocessed semiconductor wafer during the process of ‘785 because the interconnect structure of ‘737 is an art recognized semiconductor structure that would have predictably been suitable during the process of ‘785.
Thus, the combination teaches a thin multilayer stack comprised of two dielectric layers with an intervening layer wherein the dielectric layers are the same materials (i.e. have the same refractive index).
Therefor it is apparent that the multilayer stack has a periodic refractive index profile.
‘785 is directed towards hybrid lithography using a combination of lithography processes and positive tone photoresist (see ¶s 104 & 101) but does not teach a specific positive tone photoresist or developer to use with the positive tone photoresist.
However, Dhima, which is also directed towards hybrid lithography using the combination of imprint lithography and photolithography (title) notes that AZ 1505 is a known positive tone photoresist comprised of a novolak resin and diazonaphthoquinone which can be used for hybrid T-NIL & UV-L processes (see §5.4, pgs 126-138) and that AZ 400K can be used as the developer when using AZ 1505 (Figure 2.1, pg 10).
As evidenced by AZ Electronic Materials, AZ 400K is an aqueous-alkaline based developer (See Description, pg 1, AZ Electronic Materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use AZ 1505 which is comprised of a novolak resin and diazonaphthoquinone as the specific positive tone photoresist and AZ 400K as the developer during the process of ‘785 because as taught by Dhima, AZ 1505 & AZ 400K is an art recognized positive tone photoresist/developer combination which is suitable in hybrid lithography processes and thus would have predictably been suitable as the positive tone photoresist and developer in ‘785.
‘785 does not teach that the mold is coated with a release agent.
However, Dhima teaches that it is recognized in the art to treat the mold with anti-sticking layers (i.e. release agents) such as fluorooctotrichlorosilane because it facilitates mold and substrate separation (§ 2.2.1, pg 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a release agent to the mold of ‘785 because it is recognized in the art to apply a release agent to the molds to facilitate separation between the mold and substrate and would have predictably improved the mold of ‘785.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that neither ‘785 nor ‘737 teaches or suggests forming a diffuser structure in a thin film because they do not explicitly disclose that the structure formed is a diffuser structure; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the combination renders obvious the claimed process and produces a structured thin film comprising holes with steps as depicted in the annotated figure below wherein the structures formed will diffuse light and thus read on a diffuser structure. The Examiner notes that the combination teaches forming multiple of these structures across the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘785 fails to teach or suggest etching the thin film to form a microstructure pattern in the thin film, thereby forming diffuser structures; the Office does not find this argument convincing because ‘785 explicitly teaches etching the thin film using the microstructure resist pattern to form a microstructure pattern in the thin film as discussed above and as further discussed above, the term “diffuser structure” does not have a special meaning in the art beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation and thus since the structures of ‘785 will diffuse light it is apparent that ‘785 teaches this limitation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to applicant’s argument that the combination does not teach that the combination fails to teach a multilayer stack positioned between the substrate and the positive tone photoresist and that the “thin film includes one or more layers of a reflector material, a magnetic material, or a dielectric material and has a gradient or continuous variation in a refractive index or a periodic refractive index profile in a material of the thin film; the Office does not find this argument convincing because ‘785 teaches that the substrate can comprise a preprocessed semiconductor with multiple layers with multiple interconnects between the layers (see rejection of claims 1 & 21; see ¶s 74, 75, 90-91, 93, & 113) and ‘737 teaches that a known structure for an interconnect is a structure comprised of two dielectric layers with an intervening layer in which the dielectric layers can be the same material (see #s 14’, 16’, 18’, & 34, Figs. 1F & G; Figs. 1A-1G; ¶s 42-68) and thus the combination teaches a multilayer stack comprising a thin film on the substrate in which the thin film includes two layers of dielectric material with a periodic refractive index profile.
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., semiconductor interconnect structure and does not disclose an optical thin-film stack having a designed refractive-index profile) 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).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In regards to applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not use the claimed terms “replicated microstructure pattern” and “base terms”, the rejection relies on an Examiner-generated annotations of Paulic’s (‘785) figures to identify allegedly corresponding structures, and the rejection fails to demonstrate that ‘785 actually discloses the claimed structures; the Office does not find this argument convincing because prior art does not have to use the exact same terminology to anticipate limitations but instead whether the prior art reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of each limitation and in the instant case, the Examiner-generated annotations of the ‘785 Figures were provided as an aid for understanding how the teachings of ‘785 read on the terms used by applicant in the claims. The Examiner-generated annotations do not distort the teachings of ‘785 but instead demonstrate how the terms used in the claims map to the process taught by ‘785. Applicant is advised that identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
