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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 November 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Office Communication on 10 November 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 10 February 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 18-20 is amended and claims 6-8, 10, 11, and 17 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
With the exception of the arguments discussed below, Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicants argue, in the last paragraph of page 6 through the second paragraph of page 7 and with respect to claim 1, that Yamamoto does not teach “a buffer layer comprising gallium oxide and zinc oxide … such that the molar ratio of Ga to the sum of Ga and Zn in the buffer layer [Ga/(Ga+Zn)] would be between 0.001 to 0.2.” Amended claim 1 is rejected over the combined teachings of Yamamoto, Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane and recites, in relevant part, the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc, … wherein a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in the buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. MPEP 2145(IV). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Yamamoto is not cited by the Office for teaching the above-identified subject of claim 1; instead, the Office cites Shin, Yoo, and Ihn for the teaching as discussed in detail below with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Applicants argue, in the fourth paragraph of page 7 through the first paragraph of page 8 and with respect to claim 1, that Al-Asedy, Shin, and Peng do not teach “the use of the buffer layer … in a stack including a buffer layer formed on a support including a III-V nitride semiconductor and an electrode layer including magnesium oxide and zinc oxide formed on the buffer layer.” Amended claim 1 recites, in relevant part a support; a buffer layer; and an electrode layer, … wherein the support comprises a semiconductor layer, and wherein the semiconductor layer comprises a Group IIl-V nitride semiconductor.” One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. MPEP 2145(IV). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Yamamoto is cited for teaching the buffer layer, the electrode layer, and the support including a III-V nitride semiconductor, not any of Al-Asedy, Shin, and Peng as proposed by Applicants. Regarding the features of the electrode layer including magnesium oxide and zinc oxide identified by Applicants, this subject matter is not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP §2145(VI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-16, and 18-20 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.
Claim 1, lines 5 and 6, recites “the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc and optionally (i) oxygen and (ii) Al and/or, In,” which is indefinite because it is unclear: (1) whether the buffer layer includes or excludes the optional elements and (2) how the oxides of Ga and Zn can optionally exclude oxygen. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claims, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc.” Claims 2-5, 9, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
Claim 14, lines 1 and 2, recites “a metal of the buffer layer consists of Ga, Al, In, and/or Zn,” which is indefinite because claim 1 has been amended to recite the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc. Thus, no part of the buffer layer is solely Ga, Al, In, or Zn. For the purpose of compact prosecution, to better comport with the remainder of the claims, and differentiate this claim from claim 16, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer consists of GaZnO.”
Claim 15, lines 1-7, recites “the buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, and/or Pb, and optionally the oxygen and the Al and/or In,” which is indefinite because it is unclear: (1) whether the buffer layer includes or excludes the optional elements and (2) how the oxides of Ga and Zn can optionally exclude oxygen. Moreover, the original application does not disclose an instance in which the buffer layer includes more than one element among B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, and Pb. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claims, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb.”
Claim 16, lines 1-4, recites “the buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and optionally the oxygen and the Al and/or In,” which is indefinite because it is unclear: (1) whether the buffer layer includes or excludes the optional elements and (2) how the oxides of Ga and Zn can optionally exclude oxygen. For the purpose of compact prosecution, to better comport with the remainder of the claims, and differentiate this claim from claim 14, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc and Al or In.”
Claim 18, lines 1-7, recites “the buffer layer comprises, in 95% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc; and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, and/or Pb; and optionally the oxygen and the Al and/or In,” which is indefinite because it is unclear: (1) whether the buffer layer includes or excludes the optional elements and (2) how the oxides of Ga and Zn can optionally exclude oxygen. Moreover, the original application does not disclose an instance in which the buffer layer includes more than one element among B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, and Pb. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claims, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer comprises, in 95% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc; and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb.”
Claim 19, lines 1-7, recites “the buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc; and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, and/or Pb; and optionally the oxygen and the Al and/or In,” which is indefinite because it is unclear: (1) whether the buffer layer includes or excludes the optional elements and (2) how the oxides of Ga and Zn can optionally exclude oxygen. Moreover, the original application does not disclose an instance in which the buffer layer includes more than one element among B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, and Pb. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claims, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc; and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb.”
Claim 20, lines 1-4, recites “the buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc; and optionally the oxygen and the Al and/or In,” which is indefinite because it is unclear: (1) whether the buffer layer includes or excludes the optional elements and (2) how the oxides of Ga and Zn can optionally exclude oxygen. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claims, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 5, 9, 12-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US20130146916A1) in view of Shin et al. (KR20130078983A) (English translation enclosed), Yoo et al. (US20180323399A1), Ihn et al. (US20110272029A1), and Sonawane et al. (Effect of magnesium incorporation in zinc oxide films for optical waveguide applications; Physica B: Condensed Matter, Volume 405, Issue 6, 15 March 2010, Pages 1603-1607).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto teaches in Fig. 7 a stacked body, comprising, in this order,
a support (107-110) {¶0036};
a buffer layer (106) {¶0036}; and
an electrode layer (301) {¶0052};
wherein the electrode layer (301) comprises an oxide of magnesium and an oxide of zinc {¶0052}, and
wherein the buffer layer (106) is in direct contact with the electrode layer (301) {Fig. 7; ¶0058},
wherein the support (107-110) comprises a semiconductor layer (109) {¶0036}, and
wherein the semiconductor layer (109) comprises a Group IIl-V nitride semiconductor {¶0036; AlGaN}.
Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc.
In an analogous art, Shin teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038] a buffer layer (120) made of GZO. In another analogous art, Yoo teaches in paragraph [0176] that GZO is an oxide of gallium (Ga2O3) and an oxide of zinc (ZnO). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body based on the teachings of Shin and Yoo – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc (e.g., GZO) – so as to have high conductivity. Shin ¶0038.
Yamamoto does not teach a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in the buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2.
In an analogous art, Ihn teaches in paragraphs [0048, 0079] a layer of GaxZn1−xO (i.e., GZO), where 0.005≦x≦0.1 is selected to control the electrical conductivity of the GZO layer {[0056]}}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin and Yoo based on the teachings of Ihn for discovering an optimum or workable range of electrical conductivity – such that a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in Yamamoto’s modified buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2 – because 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. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Yamamoto does not teach the electrode layer has a half width of a diffraction peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg in X-ray diffraction measurement of 0.43 deg or smaller.
In an analogous art, Sonawane teaches in Fig. 3 and the second paragraph of Section 3 that a full width half maximum (FWHM) is estimated to be 0.25° for a (101)-plane peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg. in an X-ray diffraction measurement for an MgxZn1-xO film (e.g., corresponding to Yamamoto’s MgZnO electrode film). And as may be determined from inspection of Sonawane’s Fig. 3, the (002)-plane peak has a narrower profile than does the (101)-plane peak. Additionally: (1) a half width (as recited in claim 1) is half of a full width and (2) a width at half maximum is much broader than a width at the peak (as recited in claim 1). Accordingly, Sonawane teaches a half width of a diffraction peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg in X-ray diffraction measurement of 0.43 deg or smaller for an MgxZn1-xO film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, and Ihn based on the teachings of Sonawane – such that Yamamoto’s electrode layer (comprising MgZnO) has a half width of a diffraction peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg in X-ray diffraction measurement of 0.43 deg or smaller – for the purpose of tailoring a refractive index of MgZnO films to a desired extent (e.g., from 1.44 to 1.11) based on a molar amount of Mg. Sonawane Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein an Mg/(Mg+Zn) molar ratio of Mg to a sum of Mg and Zn in the electrode layer (301), is in a range of from 0.25 to 0.75 {¶0080, Mg0.55Zn0.45O}.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein the electrode layer (301) has a degree of c-axis orientation of 40% or more {¶0056, the MgZnO film is oriented along the c-axis (e.g., degree of c-axis orientation of 100%}.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein the support (107-110) further comprises an ultraviolet transmitting member (107) {¶0044}.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further wherein the semiconductor layer (109) comprises AlN, GaN, InN, or a mixed crystal thereof {¶0036; AlGaN}.
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches a semiconductor device, comprising: the stacked body (106-110, 301) of claim 1 {see analysis of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 14, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 10, but Yamamoto is not cited for teaching wherein the buffer layer consists of GaZnO.
The modification of Yamamoto’s stacked body discussed with respect to base claim 1 modifies Yamamoto’s buffer layer to consist of GaZnO as taught by Shin and Yoo. The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass,
the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc.
As discussed with respect to base claim 1, Shin and Yoo teach a buffer layer (120) made of (e.g., 100%) GZO (i.e., GaZnO). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Vertical MgZnO Schottky ultraviolet photodetector with Al doped MgZnO transparent electrode; Thin Solid Films, Volume 548, 2 December 2013, Pages 456-459) and Desieres (US20170005230A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches a stacked unit (106, 301) comprising the electrode layer (301) and the buffer layer (106) {see Fig. 7}.
Yamamoto does not teach the electrode layer and the buffer layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger.
In an analogous art, Li teaches in the third paragraph of Section 3 an MgZnO film having a resistivity of 4.7x10-3 Ω-cm {i.e., (4.7x10-3 Ω-cm)-1 = 212 S/cm}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Li – such that Yamamoto’s electrode layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger – for the purpose of improving the conductivity of the electrode layer (i.e., giving the electrode a higher current-carrying capacity).
Yamamoto does not teach the buffer layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger. However, Yamamoto teaches the buffer layer has ohmic contact with the electrode layer (301) {¶0069}.
In an analogous art, Desieres teaches in paragraphs [0023]-[0025] a buffer layer of indium-tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide ZnO, indium-doped zinc oxide ZnO, or gallium-doped zinc oxide ZnO having a conductivity from 103 to 104 S/cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, Sonawane, and Li based on the teachings of Desieres – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger – for the purpose of improving the conductivity of the ohmic contact with the electrode layer and thereby improving the current-carrying capacity of the buffer layer (e.g., between the electrode layer and the light-emitting layer).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Optical and structural properties of sol–gel prepared MgZnO alloy thin films; Thin Solid Films 516 (2008), 1124-1129) and Hirayama et al. (US20150311392A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not expressly teach wherein a stacked unit comprising the electrode layer and the buffer layer has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more.
However, Yamamoto teaches in paragraph [0075] the electrode layer of MgZnO has a high light transmittance of 86% for ultraviolet light of 254 nm.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches in Fig. 5 that an Mg0.5Zn0.5O alloy film annealed at a temperature of 600 °C has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Wang – such that Yamamoto’s electrode layer is doped to have a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more – for the purpose of improving the light transmittance of smaller-wavelength ultraviolet light, such as that emitted by Yamamoto’s 254 nm ultraviolet light.
Additionally, in an analogous art, Hirayama teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0084] that an AlGaN layer (e.g., buffer layer) has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, Sonawane, and Wang based on the teachings of Hirayama – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer of AlGaN has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more – for the purpose of improving the light transmittance of smaller-wavelength ultraviolet light, such as that emitted by Yamamoto’s 254 nm ultraviolet light.
Claim(s) 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20140291665A1).
Regarding claim 15, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041] a buffer layer (163/165) made of GZO (i.e., GaZnO) doped with tin (Sn). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Kim – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb – to improve contact characteristics (Kim ¶0038) and prevent over-etching of the buffer layer (Kim ¶0044).
Regarding claim 18, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises, in 95% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb.
Kim teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041] a buffer layer (163/165) made of (e.g., 100%) GZO (i.e., GaZnO) doped with tin (Sn). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Kim – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer comprises, in 95% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb – to improve contact characteristics (Kim ¶0038) and prevent over-etching of the buffer layer (Kim ¶0044).
Regarding claim 19, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb.
Kim teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041] a buffer layer (163/165) made of (e.g., 100%) GZO (i.e., GaZnO) doped with tin (Sn). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Kim – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer comprises, in 99% by mass or more of a total buffer layer mass, the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc, and B, Tl, C, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb – to improve contact characteristics (Kim ¶0038) and prevent over-etching of the buffer layer (Kim ¶0044).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20180057198A) English translation enclosed.
Regarding claim 16, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer consists of the oxide of gallium and the oxide of zinc and Al or In.
In an analogous art, Kim ‘198 teaches in paragraph [0016] a buffer layer consists of an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc and In. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Yoo, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Kim ‘198 – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer consists of an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc and In – so as to have high conductivity. Kim ‘198 ¶0016. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891