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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1: measurement device (first, second, and/or third) which has been interpreted as one or more interferometers and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 21; claim 1: sealing device which has been interpreted as a gap sluice, load lock or a load lock valve including a substrate support and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 22; claim 9 deposition unit which has been interpreted as a sputter deposition unit, a CVD deposition unit, an evaporation deposition unit, a PVD deposition unit, a PECVD deposition unit and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 33 and as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
First measurement assembly is no longer being interpreted under the statute because the claims further recite a measurement device holder holding two or more measurement devices.
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.
Claim 1 limitation “second measurement assembly” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because as set forth in the claim, the feature includes some, but not all, of the features attributed to a measurement assembly as set forth in the specification. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written. Dependent claims are similarly rejected based on their inclusion of the feature(s) at issue.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 1 limitation “sealing device” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because as set forth in the claim, the claim also includes features meant to be a part of the sealing device separately claimed. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written. Dependent claims are similarly rejected based on their inclusion of the feature(s) at issue.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 1, 5-12 and 17-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected on its dependence
Claim 1 now introduces “a second coating” but fails to relate the same to “the one or more coatings”, rendering the relationship between the two unclear. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “a second coating of the one or more coatings” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 1 recites “a first measurement assembly for measuring at least one property of the flexible substrate and a property of one or more coatings on the flexible substrate prior to deposition of a second coating” (emphasis added). Claim 1 also recites “a first measurement device to measure a first thickness associated with the flexible substrate and a second measurement device to measure a second thickness associated with the flexible substrate” (emphasis added). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation (the former recitation with respect to measurement), and the claim also recites (latter recitation with respect to measurement) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the latter recitation was meant to be the recitation defining how the measurements (i.e. a thickness associated with) are intended to be provided and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected because they relate to the disclosed sealing device/gap sluice, which for reasons above include features that are indeterminable with respect to itself and other related claimed features (e.g., substrate support and spacer). For claim 7, no specific interpretation is provided in order to advance examination, as Examiner is unable to present an interpretation that is in line with the claims and disclosure. Related rejections are provided above with respect to the sealing device. An overall fix, not new, for advancing examination is provided below in the “Response to Arguments” section of the office action. Although, still problematic, claim 17 has been examined as written. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-12, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,884,787 to Kuehnle in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,346,669 to Hill and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0108308 to Morimitsu et al.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 11: Kuehnle discloses a processing system for processing a flexible substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a vacuum chamber (Figs. 1-4, 50) having a wall (e.g. wall comprising 72) with an opening (e.g., opening formed by 72) for the flexible substrate; a substrate support (74 and 80) for supporting the flexible substrate during transportation of the flexible substrate through the opening; and a first measurement assembly (e.g. a thickness measurement device which would be equivalent to an interferometer) for measuring at least one property of the flexible substrate and a property of one or more coatings on the flexible substrate prior to deposition of a second coating of the one or more coatings, the first measurement assembly comprising a measurement device holder (e.g., 230, 232 and 234) holding at least two measurement devices, the measurement device holder being (indirectly) attached to the wall; and one or more spacers (e.g. pressure-tight passageways 236, 238, 240) providing a gap between a sealing device (e.g. 72) and the measurement device holder (also see, e.g., column 7, rows 32-47; column 10, rows 6-10 and Fig. 4) . Note: the disclosure states that the measuring instruments may be connected through a radial wall or lateral wall such as the one having the aforementioned opening. Kuehnle further discloses the substrate processing system is a roll-to-roll processing system having a coating drum (58 or 118) configured for guiding the flexible substrate past one or more deposition units (88).
However, Kuehnle fails to disclose the substrate support attached to the wall of a vacuum chamber.
Hill discloses a substrate support (see, e.g., guide tube 18) as part of a gap sluice attached to a wall of a vacuum chamber for the purpose of ensuring that the ingress of outside air into the vacuum chamber is kept to a minimum (see, e.g., abstract; column 1, rows 26-33; and column 1, row 60 through column 2, row 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substrate support as part of a gap sluice attached to the wall in Kuehnle in order to ensure that the ingress of outside air into the vacuum chamber is kept to a minimum as taught by Hill.
Modified Kuehnle also fail to specifically disclose a first measurement assembly being arranged upstream from the coating drum and a second measurement assembly being arranged downstream from the coating drum and/or the measurement device holder holding at least two measurement devices, wherein a first measurement device of the at least two measurement devices of the first measurement assembly is configured to measure a thickness associated with the flexible substrate and a second measurement device of the at least two measurement devices of the first measurement assembly is configured to measure a second thickness associated with the flexible substrate and/or the second measurement assembly having a third measurement device for measuring a thickness of the second coating of the one or more coatings on the flexible substate after deposition of the second coating.
Morimitsu et al. disclose a processing system comprising, inter alia, a first measurement assembly (Fig. 5, 71) for measuring at least one property of the flexible substrate and a property of one or more coatings (e.g., a first thickness and a second thickness associated with the flexible substrate) on a flexible substate prior to deposition of a second coating of the one or more coatings; and a second measurement assembly (73 in specification [misnumbered 72 in Fig. 5]) for measuring a thickness of the second coating of the one or more coatings on the flexible substrate after deposition of the second coating of the one or more coatings, wherein the first measurement assembly is arranged upstream from a coating drum (15 at 62) and therefore usable for measuring thicknesses prior to deposition of the second coating and the second measurement assembly being arranged downstream from the coating drum and therefore usable for measuring thicknesses of the second coating. The first measurement assembly and the second measurement assembly are provided for the purpose of setting physical properties on both sides of a double-sided laminated film within a desired range (see, e.g., para. 9). In Morimitsu et al. each of the first measurement assembly and the second measurement assembly (shown in detail in Fig. 2A, 31, also see, e.g., paras. 51-72) include a first measurement device and a second measurement device (34a and 34b) arranged on either side of the flexible substrate such that they can be used in order to measure a thickness of a coating associated with a respective side of the flexible substrate (see, e.g., paras. 180 and 184)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the measurement device holder of each of the first measurement assembly and the second measurement assembly of modified Kuehnle each measurement device holder holding at least two measurement devices comprising a first measurement device of the at least two measurement devices configured to measure a first thickness associated with the flexible substrate, a second measurement device of the at least two measurement devices configured to measure a second thickness associated with the flexible substrate, and a third measurement device configured to measure a thickness of the second coating in order to measure a property of films formed on either side/both sides of the flexible substrate (including the property of film thickness) as taught by Morimitsu et al.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Kuehnle, as detailed above, Morimitsu et al. disclose the first measurement device is for measuring a front side of the flexible substrate and the second measurement device is for measuring a backside of the flexible substrate.
With respect to claims 8 and 20, in modified Kuehnle, Morimitsu et al. disclose the first measurement assembly may be configured to measure a first coating thickness of the one or more coatings on the flexible substrate; and configured for measuring a thickness of a top coating and a thickness of a back coating on the flexible substrate (see, e.g., paras. 180 and 184; also see, e.g., Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 10, with respect to the type of coating deposited, the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 12, similar to the rejection set forth above for the first measurement assembly, but provided in an opposite configuration (e.g., at an outlet versus an inlet), in modified Kuehnle, Morimitsu et al. disclose a second measurement assembly adjacent a further opposite wall (at 10), the opposite wall having a further opening (not numbered) for the flexible substrate. Kuehnle discloses measurement assemblies may be disclosed through end walls as detailed above. Finally, Hill also discloses a further wall (opposite outlet wall) having an opening (10) for the flexible substrate, and wherein a further substrate support (18) for supporting the flexible substrate during transportation of the flexible substrate through the further opening (see, e.g., column 2, rows 55-59).
With respect to claim 17, in modified Kuehnle, Hill disclose the substrate is part of a gap sluice (i.e. “vacuum chamber seal” for air lock gap/aperture/elongate slot (10)).
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kuehnle as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-12, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0319422 to Kurita et al.
Modified Kuehnle discloses the substrate processing system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, with respect to claim 5, modified Kuehnle fails to disclose the measurement device holder being made of a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion α of α ≤ 4x10-6K-1 or Invar.
Kurita et al. teaches using materials, such as Invar, compatible with exposure to process and effluent gases and having a low coefficient of thermal expansion for constructing structures in a processing system (para. 71). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the measurement device holder of a material with a coefficient of thermal expansion α of α ≤ 4x10-6K-1 or Invar in order to provide the structure of a material compatible with exposure to process and effluent gases and having a low coefficient of thermal expansion as taught by Kurita et al.
With respect to claim 18, which is drawn to an article worked upon by the apparatus, it is noted that the courts have ruled that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kuehnle as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-12, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0104751 to Sudou.
However, modified Kuehnle fails to disclose the first measurement device and the second measurement device are laser interferometers.
Sudou teaches using laser interferometers as thickness measuring devices (see, e.g., para. 80).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first and second measurement devices for measuring thickness as laser interferometers as taught by Sudou.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-12 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, except for as addressed in the modified rejections above or as discussed below..
Examiner also notes that in the previous office action there were no rejections or objections related to the claim interpretations provided therein based on interpretation under 35 USC 112, para. f. However, in light of amendments to Applicant’s claimed invention, the present office action does include rejections related to features interpreted under 35 USC 112. Either way, Examiner notes that the Applicant’s disclosure has in fact been used (or an attempted to be used) to interpret the features claimed using means plus function language as set forth by the statute. If Applicant would like to preclude interpretation under the statute, Applicant is encouraged to take advantage of the following information, which is also provided above and in previous office actions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Finally, Examiner notes that previously allowable subject matter was indicated, wherein the allowable subject matter was drawn to an embodiment of the disclosed invention that, inter alia, more closely tied the attachment of the substrate support to a wall of the vacuum chamber as part of a sealing device for the vacuum chamber in combination with the measurement assembly also attached to the wall of the vacuum chamber. Previously, Applicant made the decision to forgo the subject matter. As detailed above, it is considered known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to attach one or both of a measurement device and a substrate support to a chamber wall. It would have also been obvious before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to provide measurement devices on two sides of a flexible substrate when both sides are coated (or may be coated). In order to advance examination, Applicant is encouraged to claim, as part of independent claim 1, the specific arrangement of the gap sluice (sealing device) and (at least) the first measurement assembly -- a gap sluice (sealing device) at the opening for the flexible substrate having a substrate support for supporting the flexible substrate through the opening; and one or more spacers providing a gap between the gap sluice (sealing device) and the measurement device holder of the first measurement assembly, or similar and in line with the original disclosure.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20090120034 and USP Pub. 2022/0056576 disclose similar inventions, (i.e., processing system for processing a flexible substrate and method of measuring at least one of a property of a flexible substrate and a property of one or more coatings in the flexible substrate).
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights