Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 4 para 2 that “…Zhiyong and Chen teach incompatible materials and processes..”.
Examiner response:
The examiner did not use Zhiyong in the previous rejection, so the arguments is considered moot.
Applicant argues:
At p. 4 para 3 to p. 5 para 2 that “…Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings of Schmidt with Chen and Shi.”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s arguments appear to be focused on how Schmidt accomplishes SERs rather than arguing against why someone would not be motivated in light of the Schmidt teaching of only using Ag. In response to applicant's arguments above , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner only used Schmidt as a general teaching that the SERS substrate can only have Ag particles.
In addition, the overall structure of the Schmidt device is very similar to Shi and the instant application. The point of adding silver nanoparticles to the tips of the Schmidt nanopillars is to enhance the SERS signal because silver is a SERS active material. Therefore, it is proper to combine Schmidt with Chen and Shi with the motivation of amplifying the SERS measurements from the analyte.
With respect to claim 16, the applicant’s amendment to claim 16 has overcome the previous rejection. However, after further consideration, a new rejection is made below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, W.-S. et al. CN 101614668 A (hereinafter Shi, translation is provided), in view of Chen C. et al. TW 200902192 A (hereinafter Chen, translation is provided), and further in view of Schmidt, M. S., et al., US 8767202 B2 (hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches a device (This corresponds to “silicon nanowire sensor based”. See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3.) for collecting at least one chemical analyte (This corresponds to “organic target molecule solution”. See p. 3 paragraph 7 lines 1-4.) from a gaseous or liquid sample (This corresponds to “organic target molecule solution”. See p. 3 paragraph 7 lines 1-4.), the device comprising: a substrate (This corresponds to “a single crystal silicon substrate”. See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 1-3.); a plurality of nanowires (This corresponds to “silicon nanowire array”. See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3.) extending substantially perpendicularly (See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3.) from the substrate (See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3.), wherein each nanowire includes a base attached to the substrate (The statement in p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3 means that each nanowire includes a base which is attached to the substrate.) and a tip opposite the base (The statement in p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3 means that each nanowire includes a tip which is opposite the base.); and an Ag nanoparticle coating (This corresponds to “silver nanoparticle film”. See p. 3 last paragraph.) disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires (See p. 3 last paragraph.); wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is capable of forming a conjugate (This is equated to “active substrate (the active substrate is equivalent to the carrier of the organic target molecule)” in p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3 wherein the active substrate is described in p. 2 paragraph 7.) with the at least one chemical analyte (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3) to thereby retain the at least one chemical analyte with the device (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3. The fact that the active substrate is the carrier of the organic target molecule indicates that the chemical analyte is retained with the device.).
However, Shi fails to teach wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by cracking an Ag film disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires and “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag”.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) is formed by cracking (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) an Ag film (This corresponds to “chitosan-containing film” in p. 4 paragraph 16.) disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires (Shi teaches this limitation, see claim 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Shi to have wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by cracking an Ag film disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires in order to obtain nanometal particles having higher size uniformity (See p. 6 paragraph 4 lines 1-3.).
Further, the limitation “the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by cracking an Ag film disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires” it is noted that this limitation is a product by process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case the products of Huang, Q. et al., CN 108893715 A (Fig. 1, p. 3 para 17- to p. 4 para 4), Schmidt, M. S., et al., US 8767202 B2 (see Fig. 1 element 30, col 8 lines 44-48; this means it can only be gold or silver) and Shi is the same as disclosed in the claim, and therefore reads on this claim.
Shi, when modified by Chen, does not teach “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag”.
Schmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, teaches “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” (see Fig. 1 element 30, col 8 lines 44-48; this means it can only be gold or silver).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Schmidt to Shi, when modified by Chen, to have “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” in order to enhance the Raman signal on the order of ~108 (col 8 line 58).
Regarding claim 4, Shi does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by thermally cracking the Ag film disposed on at least the tips of the plurality of nanowires.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) is formed by thermally cracking (See p. 4 paragraph 2 lines 1-3.) the Ag film disposed on at least the tips of the plurality of nanowires (Shi teaches this limitation, see claim 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Shi to have the device of claim 1, wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by thermally cracking the Ag film disposed on at least the tips of the plurality of nanowires in order to obtain nanometal particles having higher size uniformity (See p. 6 paragraph 4 lines 1-3.).
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches a process for fabricating a nanowire array (See p. 2 paragraphs 14-15 to p. 3 paragraph 1.), comprising: providing a silicon substrate (See p. 2 paragraph 14 line 1.); forming a nanowire array on the silicon substrate (See p. 3 paragraph 1.); applying an Ag thin film coating (See p. 3 paragraphs 2-3.) on the nanowire array (See p. 3 paragraphs 2-3.).
However, Shi does not discloses cracking the Ag thin film coating to form a plurality of Ag nanoparticles on the nanowire array and “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag”.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses cracking (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) the Ag thin film coating (This corresponds to “chitosan-containing film” in p. 4 paragraph 16.) to form a plurality of Ag nanoparticles (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) on the nanowire array (Shi teaches this limitation, see claim 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Shi to have the cracking the Ag thin film coating to form a plurality of Ag nanoparticles on the nanowire array in order to obtain nanometal particles having higher size uniformity (See p. 6 paragraph 4 lines 1-3.).
Further, the limitation “cracking the Ag thin film coating to form a plurality of Ag nanoparticles on the nanowire array” it is noted that this limitation is a product by process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case the products of Huang, Q. et al., CN 108893715 A (Fig. 1, p. 3 para 17- to p. 4 para 4), Schmidt, M. S., et al., US 8767202 B2 (see Fig. 1 element 30, col 8 lines 44-48; this means it can only be gold or silver) and Shi is the same as disclosed in the claim, and therefore reads on this claim.
Shi, when modified by Chen, does not teach “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag”.
Schmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, teaches “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” (see Fig. 1 element 30, col 8 lines 44-48; this means it can only be gold or silver).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Schmidt to Shi, when modified by Chen, to have “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” in order to enhance the Raman signal on the order of ~108 (col 8 line 58).
Regarding claim 6, Shi teaches the process of claim 5, wherein the forming is enacted by chemical etching (See p. 2 paragraph 14.) using a solution (See p. 2 paragraph 15.), the solution including HF (See p. 2 paragraph 15.) and AgNO3 (See p. 2 paragraph 15.).
Regarding claim 7, Shi teaches the process of claim 6, wherein the solution (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.) is maintained at a temperature (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.) above room temperature (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.) during the etching (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.).
Regarding claim 8, Shi teaches the process of claim 6, wherein the solution (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.) is maintained between 25° C and 40° C (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3. Shi teaches the etching temperature is 40oC-50oC. This is within the range of the instant application.) during the etching (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.).
Regarding claim 9, Shi teaches the process of claim 5, wherein the forming is enacted by etching (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.) the silicon support structure (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.) via a redox reaction (See p. 3 paragraph 1 lines 1-3.).
Regarding claim 11, Shi fails to disclose the process of claim 5, wherein the cracking is enacted by applying heat to the Ag thin film coating. Regarding claim 12, Shi fails to teach the process of claim 5, wherein the cracking is enacted by subjecting the Ag thin film coating to a temperature of about 800 C.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses the process of claim 5, wherein the cracking (See p. 4 paragraph 2.) is enacted by applying heat to the Ag thin film coating (See p. 4 paragraph 2. The composite material is equated to the Ag thin film coating.). In addition, Chen also teaches wherein the cracking is enacted by subjecting the Ag thin film coating to a temperature of about 800 C (See p. 4 paragraph 2.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Shi to have the process of claim 5, wherein the cracking is enacted by applying heat to the Ag thin film coating and wherein the cracking is enacted by subjecting the Ag thin film coating to a temperature of about 800 C in order to separate the metal nanoparticles (See p. 4 paragraph 2.) in order to obtain nanoparticles with higher uniform size (See p. 6 paragraph 4 lines 1-3.).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Shi fails to the process of claim 5, wherein the cracking is enacted by subjecting the Ag thin film coating to an elevated temperature for not more than about one minute.
MPEP 2144.05 II. A, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), states it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the process of claim 5, wherein the cracking is enacted by subjecting the Ag thin film coating to an elevated temperature for not more than about one minute in order to prevent overheating of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Shi fails to teach the process of claim 5, further comprising washing the array using nitric acid after said forming and prior to said applying.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses the process of claim 5, further comprising washing (This corresponds to “dissolving the chitosan” in p. 2 last paragraph.) the array using nitric acid (See p. 2 last paragraph line 3.) after said forming and prior to said applying (See p. 2 last paragraph.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Shi to have the process of claim 5, further comprising washing the array using nitric acid after said forming and prior to said applying in order to dissolve the chitosan (See p. 2 last paragraph.) in order to obtain nanometal particles having higher size uniformity (See p. 6 paragraph 4 lines 1-3.).
Or
MPEP 2144.05 II. A, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), states it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the process of claim 5, further comprising washing the array using nitric acid after said forming and prior to said applying in order to remove any dirt or impurities in the device.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Chen, and Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen, H.-L. et al. US 20160061735 A1 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Shi fails to disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the Ag film has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 10 nm.
Li, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the Ag film (See paragraph [0040] lines 9-11.) has a thickness of about 10 nm (See paragraph [0040] lines 9-11. The range of Li is within the range of the instant application.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Li to the modified apparatus of Shi to have the device of claim 1, wherein the Ag film has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 10 nm in order to have a low-cost, disposable, quick made, high sensitivity and high reproducibility surface-enhanced Raman scattering substrate (See paragraph [0002].).
Claim(s) 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi Chen, and Schmidt as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Shi fails to disclose the process of claim 5, wherein the applying is enacted by sputtering an Ag thin film coating on the nanowire array.
Li, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses the process of claim 5, wherein the applying is enacted by sputtering (See paragraph [0040] lines 11-14.) an Ag thin film coating (See paragraph [0040] lines 11-14.) on the nanowire array (Shi discloses this limitation in claim 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Li to the modified apparatus of Shi to have the process of claim 5, wherein the applying is enacted by sputtering an Ag thin film coating on the nanowire array in order to obtain stronger Raman signal (See paragraph [0057] last sentence.).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Shi fails to teach the process of claim 5, wherein the Ag thin film coating has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 10 nm.
Li, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses the process of claim 5, wherein the Ag thin film coating (See paragraph [0040] lines 9-11.) has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 10 nm (See paragraph [0040] lines 9-11. The range of Li is within the range of the instant application.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Li to the modified apparatus of Shi to have the process of claim 5, wherein the Ag thin film coating has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 10 nm in order to have a low-cost, disposable, quick made, high sensitivity and high reproducibility surface-enhanced Raman scattering substrate (See paragraph [0002].).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, in view of Chen and Schmidt, and further in view of Yüksel, Sezin, et al. "Trace detection of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with a SERS-based capillary platform prepared by the in situ microwave synthesis of AgNPs." Analytica Chimica Acta 939 (2016): 93-100 (hereinafter Yuksel).
Regarding claim 16, Shi teaches a method for detection (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 7-9.) and quantification of a chemical analyte (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 7-9.), the method comprising: providing a detection device including a substrate (This corresponds to “a single crystal silicon substrate”. See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 1-3.), a plurality of nanowires (This corresponds to “silicon nanowire array”. See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3.) extending substantially perpendicularly (See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3.) from the substrate (See p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3.), wherein each nanowire includes a base attached to the substrate (The statement in p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3 means that each nanowire includes a base which is attached to the substrate.) and a tip opposite the base (The statement in p. 2 paragraph 7 lines 2-3 means that each nanowire includes a tip which is opposite the base.), and an Ag nanoparticle coating (This corresponds to “silver nanoparticle film”. See p. 3 last paragraph.) disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires (See p. 3 last paragraph.), wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is capable of forming a conjugate (This is equated to “active substrate (the active substrate is equivalent to the carrier of the organic target molecule)” in p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3 wherein the active substrate is described in p. 2 paragraph 7.) with the at least one chemical analyte (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3) to thereby retain the chemical analyte with the device (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3. The fact that the active substrate is the carrier of the organic target molecule indicates that the chemical analyte is retained with the device.); contacting the detection device (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3.) with the chemical analyte (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3) to retain at least a portion of the chemical analyte with the detection device (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-5); analyzing the chemical analyte (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-5.) retained with the detection device to detect (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-5.) and quantify the chemical analyte (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-5.).
However, Shi fails to teach wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by cracking an Ag film disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires and “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag”, and “wherein the chemical analyte is tetrahydrocannabinol or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid”.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) is formed by cracking (See p. 5 paragraph 3.) an Ag film (This corresponds to “chitosan-containing film” in p. 4 paragraph 16.) disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires (Shi teaches this limitation, see claim 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Shi to have wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by cracking an Ag film disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires in order to obtain nanometal particles having higher size uniformity (See p. 6 paragraph 4 lines 1-3.).
Further, the limitation “wherein the Ag nanoparticle coating is formed by cracking an Ag film disposed at least on the tips of the plurality of nanowires” it is noted that this limitation is a product by process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case the products of Huang, Q. et al., CN 108893715 A (Fig. 1, p. 3 para 17- to p. 4 para 4), Schmidt, M. S., et al., US 8767202 B2 (see Fig. 1 element 30, col 8 lines 44-48; this means it can only be gold or silver) and Shi is the same as disclosed in the claim, and therefore reads on this claim.
Shi, when modified by Chen, does not teach “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” and “wherein the chemical analyte is tetrahydrocannabinol or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid”.
Schmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, teaches “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” (see Fig. 1 element 30, col 8 lines 44-48; this means it can only be gold or silver).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Schmidt to Shi, when modified by Chen, to have “wherein the Ag film consists of Ag” in order to enhance the Raman signal on the order of ~108 (col 8 line 58).
Shi, when modified by Chen and Schmidt, fails to teach “wherein the chemical analyte is tetrahydrocannabinol or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid”.
Yuksel, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, teaches teach “wherein the chemical analyte is tetrahydrocannabinol or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid” (p. 1 ABSTRACT lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yuksel to Shi, when modified by Chen and Schmidt, to have “wherein the chemical analyte is tetrahydrocannabinol or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid” in order to monitor illegal drugs and drug consumption, such as Cannabis sativa L., with its main component being tetrahydrocannabinol (p. 4 col 1 section Introduction para 1 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 17, Shi teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the analyzing includes using a Raman spectrometer (See p. 2 paragraph 6 lines 1-3.).
Regarding claim 18, Shi teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the analyzing includes using surface effect Raman spectroscopy (SERS) (See p. 2 paragraph 3.).
Regarding claim 20, Shi teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the chemical analyte is in a liquid (See p. 3 paragraph 7 lines 1-4.) or gaseous sample.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Chen, Schmidt and Yuksel as applied to claim(s) 20 above, and further in view of Wang, H. et al. US 20090086202 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Shi does not teach the method of claim 20, wherein the chemical analyte is in an exhaled breath sample.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Shi, discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the chemical analyte is in an exhaled breath sample (See Fig. 7, paragraph [0055] lines 4-13.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to the modified device of Shi to have the method of claim 20, wherein the chemical analyte is in an exhaled breath sample in order to make early disease diagnosis which disease includes, but not limited to lung cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, liver cirrhosis, failing kidney, ulcer cancer, etc. (See paragraph [0055] lines 18-21.).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877