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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/12/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-14 are presently pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A) in view of Tokuhaga et al (JP 2004178942 A).
Regarding claim 1, Unno discloses a method of manufacturing a ceramic heater, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) forming, on a surface of a first ceramic fired layer (Fig. 4a #11a ceramic sintered body) or an unfired layer, a resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or a precursor of the resistance heating element in a predetermined pattern;
(b) forming a recessed groove (Fig. 2 #12f groove) along a longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element by radiating laser light (Fig. 4a #5a laser beam) to the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element;
(c) obtaining a layered body by disposing, on the surface of the first ceramic fired layer (Fig. 4a #11a ceramic sintered body) or the unfired layer, a second ceramic unfired layer (Fig. 4b #11b ceramic molded body) such that the second ceramic unfired layer covers the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element;
and (d) obtaining the ceramic heater (Fig. 4c) in which the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) is embedded in a ceramic substrate by performing hot press firing on the layered body (Page 7 para. 3),
wherein, in the step (b),the recessed groove is formed such that a side wall surface of the recessed groove is inclined relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer (Page 6 para 6 ---" For example, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed.”; A general incline relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer must be present because a recessed groove is formed.).
However, Unno does not teach wherein, in the step (b), the recessed groove is formed such that an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer is smaller than or equal to 45º.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Furthermore, Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer being smaller than or equal to 45º.
Regarding claim 2, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer is greater than or equal to 18º.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer greater than or equal to 18º.
Regarding claim 3, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Unno teaches wherein, in the step (b), the recessed groove (Fig. 2 #12f groove) is formed such that sectional areas of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) at a plurality of measurement points determined along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element are predetermined target sectional areas, respectively (This limitation is performed by the operator. The operator can choose where to place grooves on the resistive heating element.).
Regarding claim 4, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein, in the step (b), a depth of the recessed groove is smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the depth of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a depth of the recessed groove being smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element.
Regarding claim 5, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Unno teaches wherein, in the step (a), the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element is formed such that an end surface (Shown in the figures below) of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) (Since the heating element is inclined before the groove is formed, the heating element will be inclined after the groove is formed.) or the precursor of the resistance heating element is inclined relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
206
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein, in the step (a), the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element is formed such that, relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer, an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element is smaller than or equal to 45°.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer being smaller than or equal to 45º.
Regarding claim 7, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein, in the step (b), the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove is greater than the inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove being greater than the inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element.
Regarding claim 8, Unno discloses a ceramic heater comprising
a resistance heating element (Fig. 4c #12 resistance heating element) is embedded in a ceramic substrate (Fig. 4c #11 ceramic sintered body), wherein the ceramic heater includes a recessed groove (Fig. 2 #12f groove) provided, along a longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4c #12 resistance heating element), in a surface of the resistance heating element, and a side wall surface of the recessed groove inclined relative to a surface of the ceramic substrate (Page 6 para 6 ---" For example, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed.”; A general incline relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer must be present because a recessed groove is formed.),
wherein no gap exists between the side wall surface of the recessed groove and the ceramic substrate ( Page 7 para. 4).
However, Unno does not disclose wherein an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate is smaller than or equal to 27º.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate smaller than or equal to 27º.
Regarding claim 9, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate is smaller than or equal to 27°.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate being smaller than or equal to 27°.
Regarding claim 11, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein a depth of the recessed groove is smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the depth of the groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a depth of the recessed groove being smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element.
Regarding claim 12, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Unno teaches no gap exists between the end surface and the ceramic substrate ( Page 7 para. 4).
However, Unno does not teach wherein an end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element is inclined relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the end surface groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element being inclined relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), but does not teach wherein an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate is smaller than or equal. to 27º.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the end surface groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate being smaller than or equal to 27º.
Regarding claim 14, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), but does not teach wherein an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element is smaller than the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress ([0029]). Therefore, the inclination angle of the end surface groove is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element being smaller than the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A) in view of Tokuhaga et al (JP 2004178942 A) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Maki et al (US 2008/0017632).
Regarding claim 10, Unno in view of Tokuhaga teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein an opening edge of the recessed groove are chamfered.
Nonetheless, Maki in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches wherein an opening edge of the recessed groove are chamfered ([0032] lines 1-3 ---" In another preferred heater according to the present invention, an edge of the channel may be preferably formed in an arc shape.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening edge of the groove of Unno in view of Tokuhaga by incorporating a rounded edge as taught by Maki for the benefit of reducing cracks in the heating element. (Maki [0033])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach "wherein, in the step (b), the recessed groove is formed such that an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer is smaller than or equal to 45°" and "wherein an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate is greater than or equal to 27°." Applicant further argues that the cited prior art does not take into account the criticality of the claimed ranges for the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the first ceramic layer or the ceramic substrate, and its impact on obtaining no gap between the side wall surface of the recessed groove and the ceramic substrate, which improves the thermal conductivity and thermal uniformity (good workability) of the obtained electrostatic chuck heater. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner responds that it would be obvious to make an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer is smaller than or equal to 45° or greater than or equal to 27°, since the angle is interpreted to be a results effective variable. The angle is controllable to affect the resistance of the heating element. The laser of UNNO is controllable to adjust the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like to create an angle between the groove and the side wall of the heating element. Also, Tokuhaga teaches that varying the angle of inclination between 80 degrees or less makes it possible to suppress the occurrence of stress.
Furthermore, Applicant does not impart any experimental evidence that provides for the criticality of the claimed angles of inclination, specifically that the thermal conductivity and thermal uniformity (good workability) are improved.
Also, Applicant claims that no gap is being formed by making the groove with the claimed angles of inclination. The specification does no disclose that no gap is formed but that “no gap” is defined such that the gap is so small that it cannot be seen by the naked eye ([0026] of the specification). This definition does not indicate an absence of a gap as understood with accepted meaning of “no gap.”. And, a gap can clearly be seen and is shown in figure 4 of Applicant’s disclosure. However, one of ordinary skill would expect that “no gap” would be formed since a recess angle smaller than or equal to 45° or greater than or equal to 27° can be made using the laser of UNNO being controllable to adjust the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like.
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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights