CTFR 17/952,031 CTFR 100912 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 The Amendment filed April 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application. Claims 12-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 07, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4, & 10 were amended . Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 27, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026, please refer to Applicant’s remarks pp. 9-12, has been entered and fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made. In response to the Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 1, that prior art reference(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0252294 A1), as cited by the Applicant, fails to teach, disclose and/or suggest, certain features of the invention, “ and wherein the cavity is configured to hold a semiconductor device such that the cooling plate extends over the semiconductor device;…and a hole through the cooling plate, the hole exposing the cavity. ” In light of the amended independent claim 1, new ground(s) or rejection(s) are made over Hsieh, in view of in view of Gopal et al. (US 2019/0204378 A1), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0180442 A1). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Hsieh, now in light of new prior art reference(s) Gopal, and further in view of Zhou, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, “ and wherein the cavity is configured to hold a semiconductor device such that the cooling plate extends over the semiconductor device;…and a hole through the cooling plate, the hole exposing the cavity. ” Hsieh, in view of Gopal, and further in view of Zhou, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in amended independent claim 1, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-11, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained. For this reason, withdrawn independent claims 12, 18, and 24, and their dependent claims 13-17, 19-23, & 25, which dependent from and incorporate limitations from independent claims 12, 18, & 24 (similar to amended independent claim 1), were not rejoined. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) with updated new(ground(s) of rejection(s) follow. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the hole exposing the cavity” in line 10, is not disclosed in the specification or the figures provided, therefore the claim contains new subject matter, not disclosed in the current disclosure(s). The new claim language is part of an apparatus, mentioning a hole through the cooling plate, neither description provided in the disclosure focuses on “…the hole exposing the cavity.”, which is an important limitation in the apparatus, but rather discloses the hole exposing the semiconductor device. Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of dependence on independent claim 1, which do not rectify the defect. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. Claims 1-2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0252294 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 15, 2019, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Gopal et al. (US 2019/0204378 A1, Pub. Date Jul. 19, 2019, hereinafter, Gopal), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0180442 A1, Fil. Date Dec. 3, 2021, hereinafter, Zhou) . Regarding independent claim 1, Hsieh, teaches: An apparatus comprising (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], & [0047]: semiconductor device 100, cooling device 120): a cooling plate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side (Figs. 4-5; [0050] & [0053]: first plate 118a has two sides (implied by thickness B and its coupling to the second plate 118b)); a backing plate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side (Figs. 4-5; [0050] & [0053]: discloses a second plate 118b coupled to the first plate); a cavity between the cooling plate and the backing plate (Figs. 4-5; [Abstract] & [0050]: discloses a cavity 121 located between the two plates), wherein the second side of the cooling plate and the first side of the backing plate are coupled to each other ([0054]) , wherein the coupling forms an airtight coupling that completely surrounds the cavity (Fig. 6; [0050] & [0054]: discloses that the edges of the plates are coupled to form a “sealed assembly” or are “hermetically sealed” (airtight), figure further illustrates item 120’ with edges coupled), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: and wherein the cavity is configured to hold a semiconductor device such that the cooling plate extends over the semiconductor device; However, Gopal, further teaches: and wherein the cavity is configured to hold a semiconductor device such that the cooling plate extends over the semiconductor device ([Abstract], [0028], [0036], [0040], [0084], [0097]-[0098], & [Claim 1]); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sealed cooling cavity of Hsieh to hold the semiconductor device, as taught by Gopal, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to make this modification to utilize the internal environment of the sealed cavity (e.g., such as applying pneumatic pressure) to urge the semiconductor device into thermal and electrical contact with the cooling and testing interfaces. Doing so provides the predictable advantage of maximizing heat dissipation and ensuring reliable connections during high-stress operations (e.g., burn-in testing), thus preventing thermal damage to high-power electronic components, as demonstrated by Gopal, and yield expected predictable results (KSR). Hsieh, in combination with Gopal, are silent in regard to: a manifold within the cooling plate; and a hole through the cooling plate, the hole exposing the cavity. However, Hsieh, supported by Zhou further teach: a manifold within the cooling plate ( Hsieh : Figs. 5, 8, & 13; [0051], [0056], [0060]: cavity 121 contains protruding features 126a/126b (fins/channels) and the opening 123 constitute a manifold structure for distributing the phase change material (PCM) or facilitating capillary flow; Zhou : [0045]); and a hole through the cooling plate, the hole exposing the cavity ( Hsieh : [0087]-[0088]: teaches an opening through the first plate to access the cavity; Zhou : [0044]-[0045]: teaches an inlet/outlet exposing the interior recess). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling plate of the Hsieh and Gopal combination to include an internal manifold within the cooling plate and corresponding inlet/outlet holes, as further taught by Zhou, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Zhou’s internal manifold structures into the cooling plate to optimize the distribution and flow of the cooling fluid (or the pneumatic pressure gas taught by Gopal) throughout the interior cavity. This combination provides the predictable advantage of balancing heat transfer and minimizing pressure drops, maximizing the thermal management, cooling efficiency, and operational stability of the high-power semiconductor device housed within the sealed apparatus, and yield expected predictable results. Regarding dependent claim 2, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], & [0047]), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: wherein the hole does not intersect the manifold. Hsieh, in combination with Gopal, and Zhou, further teach: wherein the hole does not intersect the manifold ( Hsieh : Figs. 5 & 25; [0054], [0058], [0060], [0084], [0087], [0089], & [0091]: discloses opening 123 (fill port) passing through the cooling plate, connects to the open volume of the cavity 121 (void space) to allow fluid filling (PCM to enter), distinct from the protruding features 126a/126b, which constitute the manifold structure, does not interest or cut through the protruding features, doing so would obstruct the fill path or damage the heat transfer structure; Gopal : [Abstract], [0028]-[0030], [0041]-[0042], [0057], [0059], [0062], [0069]-[0070], [0075], [0082], [0084], [0086], [0097]-[0098], [Claim 1] & [Claim 14]: teaches the cavity acts as a controlled pressure chamber for the semiconductor device; Zhou : [0044]-[0045]: teaches incorporating internal fluid routing (manifold microchannel structures within a cold plate)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to route Zhou’s internal manifold such that it structurally bypasses and does not intersect Hsieh’s access hole. Hsieh teaches the cavity is hermetically sealed to protect its internal components, Gopal utilizes this sealed cavity to apply targeted pneumatic pressured to the device. If the internal liquid manifold intersected the through-hole, coolant would reach the airtight seal and flood the semiconductor device cavity. Zhou teaches incorporating the internal fluid routing (manifold microchannel structures) within a cold plate. While not explicitly teaching that the hole and the manifold do not intersect, such an arrangement (isolating the hole from the manifold) would have been an obvious design choice to a POSITA. Doing so would provide the predictable advantage of maintaining strict fluid separation, allowing the internal manifold to route liquid coolant while preserving the dry, airtight integrity of the semiconductor cavity, and yield expected predictable results (KSR) Regarding dependent claim 11, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0047], [0050], [0091], & [Claim 13]), wherein the cooling plate includes a selected one or more of: copper, silver, aluminum, graphene, gold, or brass ([0037], [0041], [0050], & [0073]). 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh, in view of Gradinger et al. (US 2022/0142016 A1, Pub. Date May 5, 2022, hereinafter Gradinger), in view of Gopal, and further in view of Zhou . Regarding dependent claim 3, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 2 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0047] & [0091]), on the first side of the cooling plate ([0054], [0087], [0089], & [0091]: discloses the first plate 118a (cooling plate) having an opening 123 on the first side), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: further comprising a gasket, wherein the gasket surrounds the hole. However, Gradinger, further teaches: further comprising a gasket ([0020]: teaches the use of O-rings or seals (gaskets) on fluid openings in a cooling house), wherein the gasket surrounds the hole ([0020]: teaches that the O-rings or seals are used for the inlet opening and the outlet opening, which would require the gasket to surround the hole to function as a seal, preventing leakage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling device of Hsieh by incorporating the gasket (O-ring/seal) structure taught by Gradinger at the fill hole (opening 123) to prevent leakage during connection or operation. The purpose of the opening in Hsieh is to handle a fluid (liquid PCM). Gradinger recognizes that fluid openings require effective sealing mechanisms like O-rings, utilizing a gasket, such as an O-ring around a fluid port is a standard, well-known engineering technique to ensure a hermetic seal between a plate and a connector, like Hsieh’s tube 166, or a plug. Adding a gasket around Hsieh’s opening would yield the expected predictable result of improving the seal reliability and preventing PCM leakage, yielding predictable results (KSR). Regarding dependent claim 4, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0047] & [0091]), wherein the semiconductor device is thermally coupled with the cooling plate ([0046], [0049]-[0050], [0058], & [Claim 1]: discloses that the semiconductor device 100 is thermally coupled to the cooling plate (second plate 118b) via a TIM 116). Hsieh, is silent in regard to: further comprising the semiconductor device within the cavity, However, Gradinger, further teaches: further comprising the semiconductor device within the cavity (Figs. 1, 3, & 5; [0003]-[0004], [0015]-[0016], [0040], [0046] & [0048]-[0049]: teaches a semiconductor module (semiconductor device) comprising cooling structures, ribs 18, that are inserted within the cooling housing 13 (cavity)), PNG media_image1.png 710 971 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling device of Hsieh to arrange the semiconductor device (or its heat-dissipating structures) within the cavity as taught by Gradinger. Placing the semiconductor device’s thermal structures within the cavity eliminates thermal resistance caused by the plate thickness and external interfaces, enhancing heat transfer (direct cooling). Integrating the module into the housing allows for a reliable and compact arrangement, where a POSITA looking to improve the cooling efficiency of Hsieh’s PCM cooler would look to Gradinger’s direct cooling method to allow the PCM to directly contact the heat-generating surface inside the cavity, rather than conducting heat through the second plate 118b of Hsieh, yielding expected predictable results (KSR). Regarding dependent claim 5, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 4 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0047] & [0091]), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: wherein the semiconductor device is coupled with the first side of the backing plate. However, Gradinger, further teaches: wherein the semiconductor device is coupled with the first side of the backing plate (Figs. 3 & 5; [0003], [0016], & [0048]-[0049]: teaches a direct cooling configuration where the semiconductor module 11 (semiconductor device) and its cooling ribs 18 are accommodated within the cooling housing 13 (cavity), effectively coupling the device with the first side (inner side) of the plate structure, constitutes receptacle plate 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Hsieh to couple the semiconductor device with the first side (inner side) of the backing plate, as taught by Gradinger, according to known methods. Gradinger teaches that for optimum cooling, the structures should be in direct contact with the fluid, thus coupling the device to the first side (inside) eliminates the thermal resistance caused by the thickness of the backing plate and the extra layer of Thermal Interface Material (TIM) in Hsieh’s mounting. Gradinger further teaches that integrating the module into the housing (internal coupling) allows for a compact arrangement that is reliable, and which would be desirable for Hsieh’s goal of packaging semiconductor devices, the combination yielding the expected predictable results (KSR) of a cooling apparatus where the PCM (Hsieh) directly contacts the semiconductor device’s surface inside the cavity, enhancing the cooling efficiency. Regarding dependent claim 7, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 5 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0047] & [0091]), includes one or more electrical connectors that are electrically coupled with the semiconductor device (Fig. 1; [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0043], [0078], [0086], [0092]-[0093], & [0097]-[0098]: discloses that the semiconductor package structure includes connectors 104 (electrical connectors) on the exterior side to electrically couple the semiconductor device to a PCB) Hsieh, is silent in regard to: wherein the second side of the backing plate However, Gradinger, further teaches: wherein the second side of the backing plate (Figs. 1 & 5; [0003], [0009], [0011], [0040], & [0046]: discloses a semiconductor module 11 with a base plate 12 (backing plate) having a first side with cooling ribs 18 in the cavity and a second side attached to the substrate 22 and semiconductor device, the second side is the exterior side opposite the cooling ribs, as illustrated in Fig. 1, which also demonstrates pins/connectors extending from the second side (substrate 22 side) of the semiconductor module 11) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the electrical connectors taught by Hsieh (or the pins shown in Gradinger) on the second side of Gradinger’s backing plate assembly to provide the necessary electrical connectivity to the semiconductor device. Gradinger focuses on the internal cooling mechanics, the device requires external electrical connections to function. Hsieh provides a standard solution arranging connectors on the side of the package opposite the cooling interface (or on the same side, dependent on the configuration, but externally accessible) to couple with a semiconductor device. Thus the combination of Gradinger’s backing plate configuration and Hsieh’s teaching of connectors would yield expected predictable results (KSR) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh, in view of Gradinger, in view of Winer et al. (US5923086, Pat. Date Jul. 13, 1999, hereinafter Winer), in view of Gopal, and further in view of Zhou . Regarding dependent claim 6, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 5 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0041]-[0043], [0047], [0086], & [0091]-[0093]), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: on the first side of the backing plate. However, Gradinger, further teaches: on the first side of the backing plate (Fig. 1; [0046] & [0049]: teaches mounting the semiconductor module 11 directly to the receptable plate 14 (backing plate) such that the device protrudes into the cavity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling apparatus of Hsieh to couple the semiconductor device with the first side (inner side) of the backing plate, as taught by Gradinger, according to known methods. Combining Gradinger’s teaching of mounting the device to the backing plate with Winer’s teaching of using a socket for mounting, where it would be obvious to place the socket on the first side (mounting side) of the backing plate to receive the device, yielding expected predictable results (KSR). Hsieh, in combination with Gradinger, are silent in regard to: wherein the semiconductor device is electrically coupled with a socket However, Winer, further teaches: wherein the semiconductor device is electrically coupled with a socket (Figs. 3 & 5; [Abstract], [Col. 3, ll. 44-57], [Col. 6, ll. 12-21]: teaches a socket 305 or socket 505 used to electrically couple and mount a packaged semiconductor device (C4 package 303/503) for operation) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling apparatus of Hsieh and Gradinger by incorporating the socket taught by Winer on the backing plate, according to known methods. To improve interchangeability and repair, where Winer demonstrates the utility of sockets allowing a device to be operated and tested without permanent bonding. This would allow a semiconductor module to be easily replaced or upgraded without discarding the entire cooling assembly. Replacing a permanent electrical/mechanical connection (weld/solder) with a removable mechanical connection (socket), is a simple substitution of known elements that would yield expected predictable results (KSR) of a modular, repairable cooling system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh, in view of Gradinger, in view of Grassmann et al. (US 2018/0040537 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 8, 2018, hereinafter Grassmann), in view of Gopal, and further in view of Zhou . Regarding dependent claim 8, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 4 (Figs. 3 & 15; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0047], [0065], & [0091]), Hsieh, in combination with Gradinger, are silent in regard to: further comprising a spacer between the semiconductor device and the second side of the cooling plate. However, Grassmann, further teaches: further comprising a spacer between the semiconductor device and the second side of the cooling plate (Figs. 1 & 3; [0017], [0052]-[0053], [0057], & [0060]: discloses a spacer body 130 arranged between the semiconductor chip 102 and the cooling channel/plate 122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling apparatus of Hsieh by incorporating the spacer body taught by Grassmann between the semiconductor and the cooling plate, for height compensation improvement, according to known methods. Grassmann teaches that the spacer body simultaneously balances the height differences between various components, critical in multi-chip modules where chips may have different heights, for thermal mass enhancement, where the spacer body is made of a thermally highly conductive material such as copper, that promotes heat removal, providing a thermal buffer that a thin adhesive layer may lack. Therefore adding a spacer would improve mechanical fit and thermal capacitance, yielding expected predictable results (KSR) in the art of electronic packaging . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh, in view of Grassmann, in view of Gopal, and further in view of Zhou . Regarding dependent claim 9, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0047] & [0091]), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: wherein the cooling plate further comprises an input port and an output port coupled with the manifold. However, Grassmann, further teaches: wherein the cooling plate further comprises an input port (Figs. 3 & 4; [0063]: teaches coolant inlets 171 (input ports) which are part of a tubing structure 156 attached to the cooling plate) and an output port (Figs. 3 & 4; [063]: teaches coolant outlets 173 (output ports), also part of a tubing structure 156 attached to the cooling plate, for draining the coolant) coupled with the manifold (Fig. 3; [0061]-[0063]: teaches that the tubing structure (ports) provides fluid communication with the cooling channels 104 (manifold) within the cooling plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling plate of Hsieh to include the input and output ports taught by Grassmann, to allow for active circulation of a coolant (liquid or gas), to enhance heat removal capacity compared to a static PCM alone, which Hsieh focuses on. Providing distinct input and output ports, as opposed to Hsieh’s single opening, is a standard engineering practice to facilitate efficient filling and venting (preventing airlocks) during the manufacturing process. Thus, substituting a single fill hole with standard inlet/outlet ports to enable fluid flow or improved fluid management would yield expected predictable results (KSR). Regarding dependent claim 10, Hsieh, teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0030]-[0031], [0041]-[0043], [0047] & [0091]), Hsieh, is silent in regard to: wherein the first side of the cooling plate include markings that are related to a layout of one or more areas of the semiconductor device. However, Grassmann, further teaches: wherein the first side of the cooling plate (Fig. 1; [0034]-[0036] & [0054]: discloses the upper main surface (first side) of the first cooling plate 120) include markings (Fig. 1; [0054]: teaches that this surface includes an electrically conductive wiring structure 143 (markings), where a patterned metal layer constitutes markings on the surface) that are related to a layout of one or more areas of the semiconductor device (Fig. 1; [0054]: states that this structure is configured to connect to the pads 141 (layout areas) of the semiconductor chips 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling plate of Hsieh to include the markings (wiring structure 143) taught by Grassmann, according to known methods, to allow for the manufacture of a highly compact and lightweight package. Grassmann teaches that providing the wiring structure directly on the cooling plate (dielectric coated metal or ceramic), and direct alignment, where applying markings (such as circuit traces) directly to the cooling plate ensures precise alignment and connection to the layout of one or more areas (bond pads) of the semiconductor device. Thus, facilitating the cooling architecture desired in Hsieh, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vanderwees et al (US2022/0120518A1) discloses a high-performance heat exchanger with calibrated bypass, teaching the principle of routing internal fluid spaces (manifolds/cooling zones) to not intersect holes passing through the plate . 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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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. /HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 01, 2026 /EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/5/2026 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/952,031 Page 18 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights