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
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claims 1, 6, 7, and 13, and cancellation of claim 9 in “Claims - 08/11/2025” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 08/11/2025”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-15 pending for prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s argument, in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed on 08/11/2025, see “Claims 6-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. The dependency of claims 6 and 7 is now amended.” (remarks on page 5), has been considered and is persuasive.
In view of that along with the relevant amendment to claims 6-7, in the file “Claims” filed on 08/11/2025, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 6-7 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 08/11/2025 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” with the “Response After Final Action” filed on 08/11/2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, and does not place the application in condition for allowances for the following reasons:.
Examiner respectively disagrees with Applicant’s arguments see i) “Hinnefeld does not disclose nor suggest the graphene layer substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate. In fact, the skilled person reading Hinnefeld would only be motivated to vary a topography of a graphene layer by layering the graphene sheet on the tips of cones. There is no suggestion that having the graphene layer substantially conforms to with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate is advantageous", see ii) “Hinnefeld further suggests that the delamination of the graphene layer from the SiO2 substrate is advantageous as it creates local variations due to strain. The skilled person reading Hinnefeld would thus only be motivated to maintain delamination of the graphene layer from the substrate, and not work towards a graphene layer substantially in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate. Hinnefeld thus teaches away from the presently claimed invention”, and see “Eckinger does not disclose nor suggest a continuous graphene layer disposed on a corrugated and/or stepped surface, wherein the graphene layer substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate. The skilled person reading Eckinger would only be motivated to form the graphene layer within the recess, and not on other regions of the substrate as there is no suggestion of any advantage. Eckinger thus teaches away from a continuous graphene layer” (remarks on page 7) because of the following:
In regards to i), the Applicant has argued that “Hinnefeld does not disclose nor suggest the graphene layer substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate. In fact, the skilled person reading Hinnefeld would only be motivated to vary a topography of a graphene layer by layering the graphene sheet on the tips of cones. There is no suggestion that having the graphene layer substantially conforms to with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate is advantageous”. However, Hinnefeld clearly discloses that the graphene layer substantially conforms to and is in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1(H) and see Fig. 4(D)). The claim does not require that the graphene layer completely and fully conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (emphasis added). Thus, it is clear that Hinnefeld discloses that the graphene layer substantially conforms to and is in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1(H) and see Fig. 4(D))
In regards to ii), the Applicant has argued that “Hinnefeld further suggests that the delamination of the graphene layer from the SiO2 substrate is advantageous as it creates local variations due to strain. The skilled person reading Hinnefeld would thus only be motivated to maintain delamination of the graphene layer from the substrate, and not work towards a graphene layer substantially in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate. Hinnefeld thus teaches away from the presently claimed invention”. However, the Examiner would like to note that MPEP § 2141.02. VI “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). Secondly, as detailed in regards to point i} above, Hinnefeld clearly discloses that the graphene layer substantially conforms to and is in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1(H) and see Fig. 4(D))
In regards to ii), the Applicant has argued that “Eckinger does not disclose nor suggest a continuous graphene layer disposed on a corrugated and/or stepped surface, wherein the graphene layer substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate. The skilled person reading Eckinger would only be motivated to form the graphene layer within the recess, and not on other regions of the substrate as there is no suggestion of any advantage. Eckinger thus teaches away from a continuous graphene layer”. However, Eckinger states in [0096] that “In various embodiments, the recess 908 may be formed in the epitaxy layer 904” and “The graphene layer 910 may be formed over a surface of the recess 908. In other various embodiments, the graphene layer may 910 be implemented as a type of lining or coating on a surface of the recess 908. In various embodiments, the recess 908 may be implemented as a pyramid or be substantially pyramidal in shape. In various embodiments the recess 908 may be a truncated pyramid and/or a square frustum-like shape. According to an embodiment, the recess 908 may be any shape desired for a given application.” Thus, Eckinger clearly discloses a continuous graphene layer disposed on a corrugated and/or stepped surface, wherein the graphene layer substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate
As Applicant's other arguments, for dependent claims, are based on the patentability of the claims 1 and 13, no further response is put forward.
As the Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, this Office Action maintains the rejection of the “Non-Final Rejection - 04/09/2025” for the claims accommodating the amendment of claims in “Claims - 08/11/2025”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-4 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinnefeld et al. “Graphene transport mediated by micropatterned substrates”; 26 April 2018 (hereinafter Hinnefeld).
Regarding claim 1, Hinnefeld teaches (see below for “a magnetoresistance sensor”) (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1(A)+; Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5, and as cited below) (see alternative rejection for this claim, below) comprising:
a) a substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3) having a corrugated and/or stepped surface;
b) a continuous graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) disposed on the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3); and
c) at least two conductive elements (Ti/Au layers; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2) in contact with the graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5), wherein the graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3).
Applicant should also note that the recitation of “a magnetoresistance sensor” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, below).
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3) comprises at least one peak element and one trough element (see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3).
Regarding claim 3, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3) comprises at least two peak elements and two trough elements (see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3).
Regarding claim 4, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3) is selected from staircase structure, square- wave structure, triangle-wave structure, sine-wave structure and a combination thereof (see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3).
Regarding claim 8, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) is a single mono-atomic layer of graphene.
Regarding claim 9, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, below).
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) is in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3).
Regarding claim 10, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, below).
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the at least two conductive elements (Ti/Au layers; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2) are independently selected from Cr, Au, Ti, Pd or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the at least two conductive elements (Ti/Au layers; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2) independently have a thickness of about 2 nm to about 150 nm.
Regarding claim 12, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, below).
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3) is selected from silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron nitride, molybdenum disulfide, molybdenum ditelluride, tungsten diselenide, tungsten disulphide and a complex oxide such as strontium titanate (Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5; silicon dioxide).
Regarding claim 13, Hinnefeld teaches method of fabricating (see below for “a magnetoresistance sensor”) (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1(A)+; Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5, and as cited below) comprising:
a) forming a corrugated and/or stepped surface on a substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3);
b) disposing a continuous graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) on the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3); and
c) contacting at least two conductive elements (Ti/Au layers; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2) with the graphene layer, wherein the graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3).
Applicant should also note that the recitation of “a magnetoresistance sensor” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 14, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 13.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface on the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-3) is formed using photolithography and plasma etching, electron beam lithography and plasma etching, or metal mask and plasma etching (see Page 173504-1).
Regarding claim 15, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 13.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the graphene layer (Graphene layer; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3, 173504-4, and 173504-5) is disposed on the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate (Substrate with SiO2 Pillars; see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2) by polymer stamping or chemical vapour deposition (CVD) (see Page 173504-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 2, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eckinger et al. (US 20150102807 A1; hereinafter Eckinger).
Regarding claim 1, Eckinger teaches a magnetoresistance sensor (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1A+; [0002+], and as cited below) (see alternative rejection for this claim, above) comprising:
a) a substrate ({902, 904}; see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]) having a corrugated and/or stepped surface;
b) a continuous graphene layer (910; see Fig. 9B; [0095-0097]) disposed on the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate ({902, 904}; see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]); and
c) at least two conductive elements (906; see Fig. 9B; [0095-0097]; see also [0066-0067, 0071]) in contact with the graphene layer (910; see Fig. 9B; [0095-0097]), wherein the graphene layer (910; see Fig. 9B; [0095-0097]) substantially conforms to and in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate ({902, 904}; see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]).
Regarding claim 2, Eckinger teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, above).
Eckinger further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate ({902, 904}; see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]) comprises at least one peak element and one trough element (see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]).
Regarding claim 9, Eckinger teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, above).
Eckinger further teaches wherein the graphene layer (910; see Fig. 9B; [0095-0097]) is in contact with the corrugated and/or stepped surface of the substrate ({902, 904}; see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]).
Regarding claim 10, Eckinger teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, above).
Eckinger further teaches wherein the at least two conductive elements (906; see Fig. 9B; [0095-0097]; see also [0066-0067, 0071]) are independently selected from Cr, Au, Ti, Pd or a combination thereof (see [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Eckinger teaches all of the features of claim 1 (see alternative rejection for this claim, above).
Eckinger further teaches wherein the substrate ({902, 904}; see Fig. 9A; [0095-0097]) is selected from silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron nitride, molybdenum disulfide, molybdenum ditelluride, tungsten diselenide, tungsten disulphide and a complex oxide such as strontium titanate ([0097] in view of [0053[; silicon carbide).
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 invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Hinnefeld et al. “Graphene transport mediated by micropatterned substrates” (hereinafter Hinnefeld), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 5, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface (see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3) has a peak to peak distance of (see below for “at least 100 nm”).
While Hinnefeld teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface comprises at least two peak elements and two trough elements, Hinnefeld does not expressly disclose “wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a peak to peak distance of at least 100 nm” (emphasis added).
However, it has been held that “wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a peak to peak distance of at least 100 nm” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a peak to peak distance of at least 100 nm is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a peak to peak distance of at least 100 nm is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a peak to peak distance of at least 100 nm as claimed in device because having the wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a peak to peak distance of at least 100 nm can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for the amorphous silicon layer.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface (see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3) has a trough to trough distance of (see below for “at least 100 nm”).
While Hinnefeld teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance, Hinnefeld does not expressly disclose “wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance of at least 100 nm” (emphasis added).
However, it has been held that “wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance of at least 100 nm” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance of at least 100 nm is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance of at least 100 nm is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance of at least 100 nm as claimed in device because having the wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a trough to trough distance of at least 100 nm can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for the amorphous silicon layer.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Hinnefeld teaches all of the features of claim 2.
Hinnefeld further teaches wherein the peak element (see Figs. 1(A)-1(H); see Fig. 4(D); Pages 173504-1, 173504-2, 173504-3) has a height of (see below for “about 5 nm to about 50 nm”).
While Hinnefeld teaches wherein the corrugated and/or stepped surface has a a peak element, Hinnefeld does not expressly disclose “wherein the peak element has a height of about 5 nm to about 50 nm” (emphasis added).
However, it has been held that “wherein the peak element has a height of about 5 nm to about 50 nm” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the peak element has a height of about 5 nm to about 50 nm is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the peak element has a height of about 5 nm to about 50 nm is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the peak element has a height of about 5 nm to about 50 nm as claimed in device because having the w wherein the peak element has a height of about 5 nm to about 50 nm can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for the amorphous silicon layer.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898