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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on July 10, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 4-6 and 8 were amended. Claims 3 and 7 were cancelled. Claims 4-6 and 8 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 1-2 have been withdrawn. Replacement Paragraphs were submitted on page 7, line 12 and page 28, line 32 to page 29, line 9 to correct minor typographical errors. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is maintained based on the “gas blower” in claims 6-8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Replacement Fig. 3 should be accompanied by a statement that no new matter has been added to application based on the submission of the replacement Fig. 3.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “gas blower”.
Claim Interpretation
This application is no longer 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 based on the replacement of this term “gas blowing mechanism” in claims 6-8 with the term “gas blower.
Claim Objections
The previous rejection of claims 3-5 because of the following informalities: “the power input to the light source”, “the illuminance of the light” in claim 3, “the product” in claim 4, “the determined illuminance” in claim 5, and the “light passed through the cylindrical body” in claims 6 and 8 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 4-6 and 8 and cancellation of claims 3 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3 and amendment to claims 4-5.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers).
Regarding claim 4, Childers teaches an apparatus (133) for producing an optical fiber (175) coated with a UV- curable resin material, comprising: a cylindrical body (126) configured to allow transmission of UV light, through which a glass fiber (175) coated with a UV-curable resin material is passed;
a UV irradiation furnace (133) including a light source (LEDs of 112 and 113) which irradiates the UV light (from UV light source 112 or 113) to the UV- curable resin material from outside the cylindrical body (126). (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 16-19, 36-46 .)
Childers does not explicitly teach a power controller configured to control the power input to the light source so that a cure extent of a coating comprising the cured UV-curable resin material is constant based on the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body.
Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source based on light sensed from optical fiber and light output intensity in response to curing tube clarity and transmittance. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 37, 31, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.) (Examiner is considering adjusting the light intensity to be equivalent to “controlling the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body” based on the illuminance from the light source and the illuminance from UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body is directly proportional to the power supplied to the light source and transmitted through the cylindrical body ( Illuminance is generally proportional to power in LEDs. (See Bega NPL and Bivar NPL)
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a power controller configured to control the power input to the light source so that a cure extent of a coating comprising the cured UV-curable resin material is constant based on the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body; because Childers teaches the cure rate can be adjusted by adjusting the power of the radiation to provide a more uniform curing of protective fiber coatings. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28, 30, 31, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
Regarding claim 4, Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 31, 37, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source (112, 113) based on light sensed from optical fiber and light output intensity in response to curing tube (126) clarity or transmittance. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 28, 30-31, 37, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.) (Examiner is considering adjusting the light intensity to be equivalent to “controlling the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body” based on the illuminance from the light source and the illuminance from UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body is directly proportional to the power supplied to the light source and transmitted through the cylindrical body ( Illuminance is generally proportional to power in LEDs. (See Bega NPL and Bivar NPL)
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the power controller controls the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body; because Childers teaches the light intensity including adjustment for curing tube transmittance may be adjusted in a closed loop manner so that a desired amount of light energy reaches the fiber. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 31, 37, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 4 (An apparatus for producing an optical fiber coating with a UV-curable resin material). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
Claim 4 recites an intended use clause (i. e. power controller controls the power input to the light source based on a product). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations from claim 4 repeated in claim 5 are rejected by Childers as set forth above.
Further regarding claim 5, Childers teaches the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light form the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on the determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body based on the use of a table or function of empirically determined curing tube clarity and/or transmittance values that are stored in memory. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 31, 62, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92.)
Examiner is considering the determination of the relative decrease in the light output intensity based on decrease in curing tube transmission and the corresponding increase in light intensity to be equivalent to: "the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on a determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body," (See Childers, paragraph 83.)
Claim 5 recites an intended use clause (i. e. power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120161021 A1 to Smargiassi et al (hereinafter Smargiassi) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 7.
The previous rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers as applied to claims 4 and 5 respectively and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120161021 A1 to Smargiassi et al (hereinafter Smargiassi) is being maintained.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Moore does not explicitly teach a gas blower configured to blow gas onto a UV sensor which measures the illuminance of the UV light passed through the cylindrical body.
Smargiassi teaches a radiation detector to measure radiation intensity . (See Smargiassi, Abstract and paragraphs 9-10, 69, 83-86.)
Smargiassi teaches a gas blower configured to blow gas onto a UV sensor which measures the illuminance of the UV light passed through the cylindrical body. (See Smargiassi, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraphs 9-10, 69, 83-86.)
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas blower configured to blow gas onto a UV sensor which measures the illuminance of the UV light passed through the cylindrical body; because Smargiassi teaches the UV detector may also include a gas inlet and exhaust operable to flow a cooling gas through the radiation assembly which would remove accumulated condensed hydrocarbons which absorb UV light and cause the downward drift of the detected signal. (See Smargiassi, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraphs 9-10, 35, 41-43, 49, 68-69, 72, 80, 83-86.)
The previous rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 5,418,369 to Moore et al (hereinafter Moore) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190262860 A1 to Phoseon Technology, Inc. (hereinafter Phoseon ) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3 and amendment to claims 4-5.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 5,418,369 to Moore et al (hereinafter Moore) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190262860 A1 to Phoseon Technology, Inc. ( hereinafter Phoseon) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers).
Regarding claim 4, Moore teaches an apparatus for producing an optical fiber (36) coated with a UV- curable resin material, comprising: a cylindrical body (68) configured to allow transmission of UV light, through which a glass fiber (21)coated with a UV-curable resin material (25) is passed; a UV irradiation furnace (23) including a light source (66) which irradiates the UV light (from UV light source 66) to the UV- curable resin material from outside the cylindrical body. (See Moore, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and col. 3, lines 31-60; col. 5, lines 8-22; col. 6, lines 59-69.)
Moore teaches accurately monitoring the overall effectiveness of the curing system by gauging changes in the power level of the radiation source and the cleanliness of the center tube. (See Moore, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 5, lines 8-22.)
Moore does not explicitly teach a power controller configured to control the power input to the light source so that a cure extent of a coating comprising the cured UV-curable resin material is constant based on the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body.
Phoseon is directed to a curing device for optical fibers.
Phoseon teaches a power controller (14) configured to control the power input to the light source so that a cure extent of a coating comprising the cured UV-curable resin material is constant based on the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body. ( See Phoseon, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 4, 23, 34, 41, 46, 50, 58-60, 64, 68, 78, 81, 83, 87. )
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a power controller configured to control the power input to the light source so that a cure extent of a coating comprising the cured UV-curable resin material is constant based on the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body; because Phoseon teaches controller can be used to adjust the power source so that an intensity of the irradiation can provide the photoreactive system with a beam of spatially constant intensity surrounding the workpiece surface. ( See Phoseon, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 4, 23, 34, 41, 46, 50, 58-60, 64, 68, 78, 81, 83, 87. )
Regarding claim 4, Moore does not explicitly teach the power controller controls the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body.
Childers teaches a controller (208) to adjust light intensity based on sensed light. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraph 31.)
Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source (112, 113) based on light sensed from optical fiber and light output intensity in response to curing tube (126) clarity or transmittance. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 28, 30-31, 37, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.) (Examiner is considering adjusting the light intensity to be equivalent to “controlling the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body” based on the illuminance from the light source and the illuminance from UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body is directly proportional to the power supplied to the light source and transmitted through the cylindrical body ( Illuminance is generally proportional to power in LEDs. (See Bega NPL and Bivar NPL)
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the power controller controls the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body; because Childers teaches the light intensity including adjustment for curing tube transmittance may be adjusted in a closed loop manner so that a desired amount of light energy reaches the fiber. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 31, 37, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 4 (An apparatus for producing an optical fiber coating with a UV-curable resin material). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Moore in view of Phoseon and Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
Claim 4 recites an intended use clause (i. e. power controller controls the power input to the light source based on a product). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moore in view of Phoseon and Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations from claim 4 repeated in claim 5 are rejected by Moore in view of Phoseon and Childers as set forth above.
Further regarding claim 5, Moore does not explicitly teach the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light form the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on the determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body.
Childers teaches uses a table or function of empirically determined curing tube (126) clarity and/or transmittance values that are stored in memory of a controller. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 62, 80, 83, 92.)
Childers teaches the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light form the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on the determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 31, 62, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92.)
Examiner is considering the determination of the relative decrease in the light output intensity based on decrease in curing tube transmission and the corresponding increase in light intensity to be equivalent to: "the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on a determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body," (See Childers, paragraph 83.)
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light form the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on the determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body; because Childers teaches the light intensity may be increased to compensate for reduced curing tube transmittance so that a desired amount of light energy reaches the fiber. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 31, 62, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 5 (An apparatus for producing an optical fiber coating with a UV-curable resin material). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Moore in view of Phoseon and Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
Claim 5 recites an intended use clause (i. e. power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moore in view of Phoseon and Childers is capable of the intended use and as a result meet this claim limitation.
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 5,418,369 to Moore et al (hereinafter Moore) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190262860 A1 to Phoseon Technology, Inc. ( hereinafter Phoseon) as applied to claim 3 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120161021 A1 to Smargiassi et al (hereinafter Smargiassi) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3 and amendment to claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 5,418,369 to Moore et al (hereinafter Moore) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190262860 A1 to Phoseon Technology, Inc. ( hereinafter Phoseon) as applied to claim 4 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120161021 A1 to Smargiassi et al (hereinafter Smargiassi).
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 5,418,369 to Moore et al (hereinafter Moore) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190262860 A1 to Phoseon Technology, Inc. ( hereinafter Phoseon) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers as applied to claims 4 and 5 respectively and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120161021 A1 to Smargiassi et al (hereinafter Smargiassi) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 7.
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 5,418,369 to Moore et al (hereinafter Moore) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190262860 A1 to Phoseon Technology, Inc. ( hereinafter Phoseon) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160318797 A1 to Doug Childers (hereinafter Childers as applied to claim 5 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120161021 A1 to Smargiassi et al (hereinafter Smargiassi) is being maintained.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Moore does not explicitly teach a gas blower configured to blow gas onto a UV sensor which measures the illuminance of the UV light passed through the cylindrical body.
Smargiassi teaches a radiation detector to measure radiation intensity. (See Smargiassi, Abstract and paragraphs 9-10, 69, 83-86.)
Smargiassi teaches a gas blower configured to blow gas onto a UV sensor which measures the illuminance of the UV light passed through the cylindrical body. (See Smargiassi, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraphs 9-10, 69, 83-86.)
It would have been obvious to a person of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas blower configured to blow gas onto a UV sensor which measures the illuminance of the UV light passed through the cylindrical body; because Smargiassi teaches the UV detector may also include a gas inlet and exhaust operable to flow a cooling gas through the radiation assembly which would remove accumulated condensed hydrocarbons which absorb UV light and cause the downward drift of the detected signal. (See Smargiassi, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraphs 9-10, 35, 41-43, 49, 68-69, 72, 80, 83-86.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 first paragraph of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that :
“Applicant respectfully submits that although Childers discloses controlling the current flowing through a plurality of light arrays based on the light intensity, Childers fails to disclose or render obvious at least ‘the power controller controls the power input to the light source based on a product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body,’ as recited in claim 4”
Examiner disagrees. Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source based on light sensed from optical fiber and light output intensity in response to curing tube clarity or transmittance. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 31, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
Examiner is considering adjusting the light intensity to be equivalent to “controlling the power input to the light source based on the product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body” based on the illuminance from the light source and the illuminance from UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body is directly proportional to the power supplied to the light source and transmitted through the cylindrical body ( Illuminance is generally proportional to power in LEDs. (See Bega NPL and Bivar NPL)
On page 10 second paragraph of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that :
“The product of the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body represents the illuminance of the UV light in the quartz tube. … Applicant respectfully submits that Childers is silent regarding such a technical effect”
Examiner disagrees. As stated above, Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source based on light sensed from optical fiber and light output intensity in response to curing tube clarity and transmittance. (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 31, 37, 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
On page 12 second paragraph of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that :
“Accordingly, Childers, whether taken individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious at least "the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on a determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body," as recited in claim 5.
Examiner disagrees. As stated above, Childers teaches the power controller (external controller 208) controls the power input to the light source based on light sensed from optical fiber and light output intensity in response to curing tube clarity and transmittance. Examiner is considering the value of the light transmitted through the tube and is measured by photodetector 360 as well as a measurement of the curing tube clarity or transmittance. Additionally, Childers specifies that if curing tube clarity decreases by 5% then light intensity may be increased to compensated for the reduced transmittance (+/- 5 %). Examiner is considering the determination of the relative decrease in the light output intensity based on decrease in curing tube transmission and the corresponding increase in light intensity to be equivalent to: "the power controller determines the illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body from the illuminance of the UV light from the light source and the illuminance of the UV light transmitted through the cylindrical body, and controls the power input to the light source based on a determined illuminance of the UV light in the cylindrical body," (See Childers, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 23, 31, 37, 42 48-53, 79-83, 85, 89.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023229 A1 to Matsushita et al teaches illuminances can be monitored in order to raise the intensity of the UV light. (See Matsushita, Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraph 89.)
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights