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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed October 4th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 27, 29, 31, and 41 have been amended. Claims 42-50 have been added. Claims 27-31, 38, and 41-50 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All Claim objections,112b, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment as outlined below.
Claim objections
Claims 27 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27, please amend “the wafer” to “the semiconductor wafer”; “each device during” to “each device region during”.
Claim 42: “separating individual biosensor devices” to separating the individual biosensor devices” in line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-31, 38, and 41-50 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.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 recites the limitation “said channel region” but also recites “individual device regions each comprising… a channel region”. It is unclear if said channel region refers to each channel region or a specific channel region. Claims 28-31, 38, and 41 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 27.
Regarding Claim 38, the limitation “the charge transfer layers” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 42, Claim 42 recites the limitation “said at least one detection area” in line 5, but also recites “each device region comprising at least one detection area”. It is unclear if said at least one detection area refers to each at least one detection area or a specific detection area. Claims 43-50 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 27.
Regarding Claim 45, the limitation “the charge transfer layer” lacks antecedent basis”.
Regarding Claim 46, the limitation “the detection area” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 50, the limitation “the detection area” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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.
Claims 27-29, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aran (US 2021/0382045 A1) in view of Elias (US 2022/0136996 A1), Flounders (Immobilization, stabilization, and patterning techniques for enzyme based sensor systems. 1997, pages 1-6), and Lin (Investigation of chipping and wear of silicon wafer dicing. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 2014, 16, 373-378).
Regarding Claim 27, Aran teaches a method, comprising the steps of:
providing a semiconductor wafer (sensor formed on a substrate, such as a silicon wafer [para. 0091]);
forming device regions comprising a source (source 212 in Fig. 2 [para. 0091]), a drain (the drain 202 in Fig. 2 [para. 0091]) and a channel region (a channel 210 in Fig. 2 [para. 0091]);
forming a detection area over said channel region (channel can be made of graphene to form a detection area over graphene channel 210 [para. 0093]);
immobilizing capture molecules on the detection area (biomolecules or moieties may be immobilized or functionalized on the surface of the channel 210 [para. 0097]).
Aran is silent on in step ii), forming individual device regions each comprising a source, a drain, and a channel; in step iv) immobilizing capture molecules on the detection area across multiple device regions of the wafer in a batch process, prior to separation of the individual device regions; v) after immobilizing the capture molecules separating individual semiconductor devices from the semiconductor wafer, wherein the capture molecules remain immobilized at the detection area of each device during and after separation.
Elias teaches a sensor for performing measurements using a plurality of graphene field-effect transistors (abstract), and teaches forming individual device regions each comprising a source, a drain, and a channel (each sensor comprises a source contact, a drain contact, and a gate contact [para. 0038]).
Aran and Elias are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for making semiconductor devices. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify step ii in the semiconductor manufacturing method of Aran by forming individual device regions each comprising a source, a drain, and a channel, as taught by Elias, as creating multiple semiconductor devices on a single wafer allows for parallel manufacturing of multiple semiconductor devices at once (Elias, [para. 0069]).
Modified Aran is silent on iv) immobilizing capture molecules on the detection area across multiple device regions of the wafer in a batch process, prior to separation of the individual device regions; v) after immobilizing the capture molecules separating individual semiconductor devices from the semiconductor wafer, wherein the capture molecules remain immobilized at the detection area of each device during and after separation.
Flounders teaches a processing technique for fabrication of enzyme modified FETs (Summary, page 1), and teaches iv) immobilizing capture molecules on the detection area across multiple device regions of the wafer in a batch process, prior to separation of the individual device regions (as outlined in Figure 1, multiple enzyme detection regions are formed for graphene FETs [Sections Summary and Enzyme Immobilization, page 1]; individual enzyme sections are placed on wafer to improve wafer scale processing [Sections Summary and Enzyme Immobilization, page 1]).
Modified Aran and Flounders are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for making semiconductor devices. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify step iv in the semiconductor manufacturing method of modified Aran by immobilizing capture molecules on the detection area across multiple device regions of the wafer in a batch process, prior to separation of the individual device regions, as taught by Flounders, as creating multiple enzyme immobilized sections on a single wafer allows for improved wafer scale enzyme attachment (Flounders, [Section Summary, page 1]).
Modified Aran is silent on v) after immobilizing the capture molecules separating individual semiconductor devices from the semiconductor wafer, wherein the capture molecules remain immobilized at the detection area of each device during and after separation.
Lin teaches a study of semiconductor wafer dicing (abstract), and teaches separating individual semiconductor devices from the semiconductor wafer (wafer dicing cuts a semiconductor wafer into individual dies [first para. col. 1, page 373]).
Modified Aran and Lin are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for making semiconductor devices. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step in the semiconductor manufacturing method of modified Aran to separate individual semiconductor devices from the semiconductor wafer, as taught by Lin, as creating multiple semiconductor devices on a single wafer allows for parallel manufacturing of multiple semiconductor devices at once (Lin, [multiple devices created on one semiconductor wafer, as illustrated in Figure 2, page 375]).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Aran teaches the method of claim 27.
Aran teaches wherein the step of iv) immobilizing comprising providing linker molecules in a linker carrier fluid (to heterogeneously functionalize the channel, a solution may be applied with a target functionalization chemistry [para. 0116]) and immobilizing the linker molecules on the detection area in a first incubation step (a solution is first applied to the channel [para. 0116]); and then providing the capture molecules in a capture molecule carrier fluid (biomolecules or moieties present in sample fluid 110 [para. 0097]) and binding the capture molecules to the linker molecules in a second incubation step (in an example, a sample fluid 418 containing biomolecules 420, 422 is exposed to the functionalized sensor surface [para. 0123]).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Aran teaches the method of claim 28.
Aran teaches wherein the step iii) further comprises forming a charge transfer layer at the detection area (as outlined in the Claim 27 rejection above, the detection area comprises graphene [para. 0093 of Aran]), wherein the charge transfer layer comprises at least one monolayer of graphene (as outlined in Claim 27 rejection, the detection area comprises graphene [para. 0093 of Aran]).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Aran teaches the method of claim 27.
Aran teaches further comprising forming a protection layer over at least the charge transfer layers after the step of iv) immobilizing (a hardmask protective layer of gold or other suitable metal may be deposited over the graphene channel [para. 0205], which may be functionalized [para. 0097]).
Regarding Claim 38, modified Aran teaches the method of claim 31.
Aran teaches further comprising a step of forming a protection layer pattern over at least the charge transfer layers after the step of immobilizing capture molecules on the charge transfer layers (the hardmask protective layer of gold or other suitable metal can be patterned via etching over the graphene channel [para. 0205], which may be functionalized [para. 0097]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aran, Elias, Flounder, and Lin, as applied to claim 27 above, and in view of Welch (Orientation and characterization of immobilized antibodies for improved immunoassays. Biointerfaces 2017. 12, 1-13).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Aran teaches the method of claim 27.
Aran teaches wherein the step of iv) immobilizing comprises providing the capture molecules as polarized capture molecule (proteins [para. 0097]) including a linker molecule end (as illustrated in Figure 5, protein includes a linker molecule end to interact with channel 410 [para. 0123-0124]) and capture molecule end (protein includes capture molecule end to capture target, such as antigen 422 [para. 0123]) and applying an electrostatic field to orient and drive the linker molecule end to facilitate binder the linker molecule end on the detection area (different voltages may be applied to attract and repel the different charges of the biomolecules [para. 0116-0117]).
Aran is silent on the polarized capture molecules being “conjugates”.
Welch teaches a review on the orientation of surface immobilized molecules (abstract), and teaches capture molecules are conjugates (proteins can be conjugated with, for example, biotin or nucleotides [second and third paras. col. 2, page 5]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarized capture molecules of modified Aran to be conjugates, as taught by Welch, as conjugation of proteins can be used as capture molecules successful on immobilization of surfaces to sensing (Welch, [abstract]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aran, Elias, Flounder, and Lin, as applied to claim 31 above, and in view of Sorribas (Photolithographic Generation of Protein Micropatterns for Neuron Culture Applications. Biomaterials 2002, 893-900).
Regarding Claim 41, modified Aran teaches the method of claim 31.
Aran is silent on wherein the protection layer is removable by a solvent after the step of separating without removing the immobilized capture molecules from the detection area.
Sorribas teaches wherein the protection layer is removable by a solvent after the step of separating without removing the immobilized capture molecules from the detection area (a sucrose layer that protects the immobilized protein can be removed via buffer soaking [fourth para. col. 2, page 894]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the protective layer of modified Aran with a protective sucrose layer so that the protection layer is removable by a solvent after the step of separating without removing the immobilized capture molecules from the the detection area, as taught by Sorribas, as removing the protective layer allow for exposure of the immobilized proteins for sensing (Sorribas, [fourth para. col. 2, page 894]).
Claims 42-45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias in view of Flounders and Lin.
Regarding Claim 42, Elias teaches a method of fabricating biosensor devices (a wafer comprising a plurality of sensors [para. 0024]), comprising the steps of:
i) providing a semiconductor wafer having a plurality of device regions (as illustrated in Fig. 9, a wafer comprises a plurality of sensors in the embodiments of Figs 1A-1C and Fig. 2 [para. 0035]), each device region comprising at least one detection area for forming individual biosensor devices (each sensor is a graphene FET [para. 0038]);
ii) in a first incubation step (graphene is functionalized with an appropriate linker molecule, such as pyrene [paras. 0072, 0075]), applying a linker molecule solution to the semiconductor wafer to immobilize linker molecules on said at least one detection area (linker molecule is applied to graphene [para. 0072]);
iii) in a second incubation step, applying a capture molecule solution to said at least one detection area to bind at least one capture molecule to the immobilized linker molecules (probe molecule is attached to linker [para. 0073]).
Elias is silent on iv after step iii), separating individual biosensor devices from the wafer, wherein said at least one capture molecule remain immobilized at said at least one detection area of each separated biosensor device.
Flounders teaches a processing technique for fabrication of enzyme modified FETs (Summary, page 1), and teaches iv) immobilizing capture molecules on the detection area across multiple device regions of the wafer in a batch process, prior to separation of the individual device regions (as outlined in Figure 1, multiple enzyme detection regions are formed for graphene FETs [Sections Summary and Enzyme Immobilization, page 1]; individual enzyme sections are placed on wafer to improve wafer scale processing [Sections Summary and Enzyme Immobilization, page 1]).
Lin teaches a study of semiconductor wafer dicing (abstract), and teaches separating individual semiconductor devices from the semiconductor wafer (wafer dicing cuts a semiconductor wafer into individual dies [first para. col. 1, page 373]).
Elias, Flounders, and Lin are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for making semiconductor devices. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step iv in the semiconductor manufacturing method of Elias of after step iii), separating individual biosensor devices from the wafer, wherein said at least one capture molecule remain immobilized at said at least one detection area of each separated biosensor device, as taught by combined Elias and Flounders, as creating multiple semiconductor devices on a single wafer allows for parallel manufacturing of multiple semiconductor devices at once (Lin, [multiple devices created on one semiconductor wafer, as illustrated in Figure 2, page 375]), and creating multiple enzyme immobilized sections on a single wafer allows for improved wafer scale enzyme attachment (Flounders, [Section Summary, page 1]).
Regarding Claim 43, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42, and teaches wherein the linker molecules comprise a pyrene-based crosslinker configured to bind to graphene (as outlined in the Claim 42 rejection above, Elias teaches the crosslinker can be pyrene [para. 0075]).
Regarding Claim 44, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42.
Elias teaches wherein the capture molecules comprise antibodies specific to a target analyte (capture molecule can be an antibody associated with a target substance or biomarker [para. 0073]).
Regarding Claim 45, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42.
Elias teaches wherein the charge transfer layer comprises a monolayer of graphene (graphene layer is preferably high-quality monolayer graphene [para. 0040]).
Regarding Claim 49, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42.
Elias is silent on further comprising the step of testing each separated biosensor device for capture molecule functionality using a fluorescently labeled analyte.
Flounders teaches the step of testing each separated biosensor device for capture molecule functionality using a fluorescently labeled analyte (as illustrated in Fig. 1 on page 2, each individual enzyme section is challenged with fluorescent tag).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Elias by comprising the step of testing each separated biosensor device for capture molecule functionality using a fluorescently labeled analyte, as taught by Flounders, as adding this step allows for confirmation of enzyme on each detection area (Flounders, [see bottom right of Figure 1]).
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias, Flounders and Lin, as applied to claim 42 above, and in view of Sorribas.
Regarding Claim 46, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42.
Elias is silent on further comprising forming a removable protection layer over the detection area after step iv), wherein the protection layer is configured to preserve bifunctionality during separation.
Sorribas teaches a removable protection layer is dissolvable in an solvent that does not remove the immobilized capture molecules (a sucrose layer that protects the immobilized protein can be removed via buffer soaking [fourth para. col. 2, page 894]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Elias by adding a removable protection layer that is dissolvable in a solvent but does not remove the immobilized capture molecules, as taught by Sorribas, as removing the protective layer allow for exposure of the immobilized proteins for sensing (Sorribas, [fourth para. col. 2, page 894]).
Regarding Claim 47, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 46.
Elias is silent on further comprising a removable protection layer is dissolvable in an aqueous solvent that does not remove the immobilized capture molecules.
Sorribas teaches a removable protection layer is dissolvable in a solvent that does not remove the immobilized capture molecules (a sucrose layer that protects the immobilized protein can be removed via buffer soaking [fourth para. col. 2, page 894]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the protective layer of modified Elias with a removable protection layer that is dissolvable in a solvent that and does not remove the immobilized capture molecules, as taught by Sorribas, as removing the protective layer allow for exposure of the immobilized proteins for sensing (Sorribas, [fourth para. col. 2, page 894]).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias in view of Flounders and Lin, as applied to claim 42 above, and in view of Tipgunlakant (US 2014/0273191 A1).
Regarding Claim 48, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42.
Elias teaches wherein the steps iii) and iv) are performed using automated wafer-scale fluid dispensing equipment (dicing is carried out using automated dicing [para. 0069]).
Elias is silent on wherein the steps iii) and iv) are performed using incubation equipment.
Tipgunlakant teaches a cell incubation system and methods for using a cell incubation system (abstract), and teaches the steps iii) and iv) are performed using incubation equipment (incubator system 300 with an incubation chamber 310 [para. 0122]; which can include bioFETs with immobilized detection areas [paras. 0113-0114]; illustrated in Fig. 17B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify steps iii) and iv) in the method of modified Elias to use incubation equipment, as taught by Tipgunlakant, as incubation equipment allows for the study of pharmacological and biochemical effects (Tipgunlakant, [para. 0012]).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias, Flounders and Lin, as applied to claim 42 above, and in view of Aran and Welch.
Regarding Claim 50, modified Elias teaches the method of claim 42.
Elias is silent on wherein the step of iii) comprises providing the capture molecules as polarized capture molecule conjugates including a linker molecule end and capture molecule end, and applying an electrostatic field to orient and drive the linker molecule end to facilitate binding the linker molecule end on the detection area to immobilize the capture molecules.
Aran teaches wherein the step of immobilizing comprises providing the capture molecules as polarized capture molecule (proteins [para. 0097]) including a linker molecule end (as illustrated in Figure 5, protein includes a linker molecule end to interact with channel 410 [para. 0123-0124]) and capture molecule end (protein includes capture molecule end to capture target, such as antigen 422 [para. 0123]) and applying an electrostatic field to orient and drive the linker molecule end to facilitate binder the linker molecule end on the detection area (different voltages may be applied to attract and repel the different charges of the biomolecules [para. 0116-0117]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of iii) of the method of modified Elias by providing the capture molecules as polarized capture molecules including a linker molecule end and capture molecule end, and applying an electrostatic field to orient and drive the linker molecule end to facilitate binding the linker molecule end on the detection area to immobilize the capture molecules, as taught by Aran, as applying an electrostatic field allows for functionalization of the transistor channels (Aran, [para. 0116]).
Modified Elias is silent on the polarized capture molecules being “conjugates”.
Welch teaches a review on the orientation of surface immobilized molecules (abstract), and teaches capture molecules are conjugates (proteins can be conjugated with, for example, biotin or nucleotides [second and third paras. col. 2, page 5]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarized capture molecules of modified Elias to be conjugates, as taught by Welch, as conjugation of proteins can be used as capture molecules successful on immobilization of surfaces to sensing (Welch, [abstract]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 10-18, filed 10/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections and amended claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 103 prior art rejection of independent claim 27 on pages 10-14 by amending claim 27 to emphasize wafer-level batch immobilization of biological capture molecules prior to device separation, as neither the prior art of Aran nor Lin teaches immobilization prior to dicing. In addition, claim 27 requires the capture molecules remain immobilized at the detection area during and after separation, which is not disclosed by Aran nor Lin. Applicant further notes that claim 27 is not a reordering of conventional steps, but a deliberate and non-obvious process.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 103 prior art rejection of dependent claims 28-31 and 38 as they recite additional structural and process limitations that are not taught nor suggested by the Aran nor Lin, as the prior art does not go into specifics for these claim limitations (e.g. Claim 28 – Aran broadly discusses functionalization but does not suggest the two-stage process of molecular coupling not inherent in semiconductor; Claim 29 - Aran mentions graphene but does not teach the specific combination of wafer-level immobilization of capture molecules; Claim 31 – Aran does not describe any protective overlay; Claim 38 – this limitation introduces additional manufacturing and intent, and is not conventional for semiconductors or MEMS).
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above. The Examiner notes that Aran teaches a FET biosensor on a silicon wafer (Aran, [para. 0091]), and are thus applicable to read on the listed claims and semiconductors.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 103 prior art rejection of dependent claims 30 and 41 as claim 30 teaches a non-obvious immobilization technique of polarized capture molecule conjugates are aligned via an electrostatic field, and although Welch teaches surface chemistry with covalent binding, Welch does not disclose or suggest using electrostatic fields. For Claim 41, not teaching is suggested from Sorribas for applying a protective layer after immobilization.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above. In addition, as outlined in the claim 30 rejection above, Aran teaches the use of an electrostatic field to orient polarized molecules. For Claim 41, Sorribas does teach applying a protective layer after immobilization, as the surface was treated with covalent immobilization of protein, followed by addition of sucrose prior to photoresist (Sorribas, Section 2.1, page 894).
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 RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights