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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2026, 08/12/2026, and 08/18/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/22/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 18, 21, 25, 28-33, 36, 40, and 43-47 has/have been amended; claim(s) 23-24 and 38-39 has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1, 18-22, 25-37, and 40-47 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 18-19, 21, 25-28, 32-33, 36, 40-43, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784).
Regarding claim 1, Nomaru discloses an optical processing apparatus comprising:
a split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) configured to split a first light beam, which enters the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element), into a second light beam including a plurality of light beams;
a first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 variable magnification optical system) that is disposed on at least one of an optical path of the first light beam entering the split optical system, and is configured to change a lateral magnification or an angular magnification of the first light beam (Shown in the figure below);
a second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 variable magnification optical system) that is disposed on at least one of an optical path of the second light beam output from the split optical system, and is configured to change a lateral magnification or an angular magnification of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam (Shown in the figure below);
a condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) configured to condenses the second light beam, wherein an object is processed by the second light beam from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) (Page 4 para. 1),
wherein an object (Fig. 1 W) is processed by the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam output from the condensing optical system.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nomaru does not disclose a reflection apparatus that is disposed on an optical path of the second light beam output from the split optical system and that includes a swingable reflective surface that reflects the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam.
Nonetheless, Kim in the same field of endeavor being laser optical systems teaches a reflection apparatus (Fig. 1A #s 140a-140b galvanometer scanner) that is disposed on an optical path of the second light beam output from the split optical system and that includes a swingable reflective surface that reflects the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru by incorporating the reflection apparatus as taught by Kim for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 18, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Kim teaches wherein the reflective surface of the reflection apparatus (Fig. 1A #s 140a-140b galvanometer scanner) swings so that respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam that are condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system move along a second direction that intersects with a first direction so that the respective condensing parts are arranged adjacent to each other in the first direction ([0058] ---"The first galvanometer scanner 140a may control an irradiation position of the laser beam Lr of an infrared ray area band and the second galvanometer scanner 140b may control an irradiation position of the laser beam Lv of the visible ray area band.”; (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru by incorporating the reflection apparatus as taught by Kim for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 19, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) splits the first light beam so that the respective condensing parts are arranged along the first direction (Page 3 para. 5 ---"The elliptical beam vertically incident on the diffractive optical element 12 is branched into a plurality of lights having different angles in the same axial direction at the respective incident points.”).
Regarding claim 21, Nomaru in view of Kim the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 variable magnification optical system)
and the second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) change an opening angle of each light beam of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) and an interval between respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) independently from each other by changing magnifications of the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) and of the second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 25, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) changes a diameter of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) by changing a magnification of the first light beam (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 26, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) includes a diffractive optical element. Regarding claim 27, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system includes a reflective member (Fig. 7 an optical system using a reflective diffractive optical element).
Regarding claim 28, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches further comprising: a light source apparatus (Fig. 1 #11 laser light source) configured to emit the first light beam entering the split optical system.
Regarding claim 32, Nomaru in vies of viewsteaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches further comprising a sample table (Fig. 8 #60 chuck table) configured to support the object so that the object is irradiated with the second light beam from the condensing optical system.
Regarding claim 33, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam are three or more light beams (Shown in the figure below), the condensing optical system condenses each of the three or more light beams from the split optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) splits the first light beam so that respective condensing parts of the three or more light beams, which are condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens), are arranged along a predetermined direction (Fig. 2 shows the three laser beams from the split optical system being arranged at a predetermined direction.).
Regarding claim 36, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) and the second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) changes an opening angle of each light beam of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) and an interval between respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) independently from each other by changing magnifications of the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) and the second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 40, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 variable magnification optical system) changes a diameter of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) by changing a magnification of the first light beam (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 41, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) includes a diffractive optical element. Regarding claim 42, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system includes a reflective member (Fig. 7 an optical system using a reflective diffractive optical element).
Regarding claim 43, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches further comprising a light source apparatus (Fig. 1 #11 laser light source) configured to emit the first light beam entering the split optical system.
Regarding claim 47, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches further comprising: a sample table (Fig. 8 #60 chuck table) configured to support the object so that the object is irradiated with the second light beam from the condensing optical system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 18, further in view of Dyck et al (US 2022/0258280).
Regarding claim 20, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), but does not teach wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle.
Nonetheless, Dyck in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle ([0113] ---" According to an embodiment, the diffractive optical element is configured such that the at least two partial beams 104, 204 leaving therefrom enclose an acute angle, for example as shown in FIG. 4.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the angle between at two adjacent light beams as taught by Dyck for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam. (Dyck [0007])
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Maurice et al (US 2016/0207249).
Regarding claim 22, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 21), but does not teach wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system.
Nonetheless, Maurice in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system ([0150] lines 1-2 ---" The afocal system 6 is an optical system allowing the radiation beam that is delivered thereto to be enlarged.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the afocal system as taught by Maurice for the benefit variably enlarging the laser beam.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Odagiri et al (US 2016/0151857).
Regarding claim 29, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach further comprising a combining optical system configured to combine the second light beam output from the split optical system with a third light beam different from the second light beam, wherein the condensing optical system condenses each of the third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam output from the combining optical system.
Nonetheless, Odagiri in the same field of endeavor being laser optical systems teaches further comprising a combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) configured to combine the second light beam output from the split optical system with a third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) different from the second light beam, wherein the condensing optical system condenses each of the third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam output from the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 30, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 29), and Odagiri teaches wherein the second light beam and the third light beam are light beams having different wavelengths ([0028] lines 20-26 ---"The dichroic mirror 53 disposed between the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 and the condenser 52 has a function for reflecting and introducing the pulse laser beam LB oscillated from the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 to the condenser 52 and allowing light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB (in the present embodiment, 355 nm) to pass therethrough.”; Since the dichroic mirror allows light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB to pass therethrough, the second and third light beams must have different wavelengths.), and the combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) includes a dichroic mirror or a dichroic prism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the second and third light beams at different wavelengths and the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 31, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 29), and Odagiri teaches further comprising: a position detection unit (Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) configured to irradiate the object with the third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) through the combining optical system and the condensing optical system and to detect a position of the object based on a fourth light beam that is a returned light of the third light beam from the object and that is detected through the condensing optical system and the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the irradiation means as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 33, further in view of Dyck et al (US 2022/0258280).
Regarding claim 35, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), but does not teach wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle.
Nonetheless, Dyck in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle ([0113] ---" According to an embodiment, the diffractive optical element is configured such that the at least two partial beams 104, 204 leaving therefrom enclose an acute angle, for example as shown in FIG. 4.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the angle between at two adjacent light beams as taught by Dyck for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam. (Dyck [0007])
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 36, further in view of Maurice et al (US 2016/0207249).
Regarding claim 37, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 36), but does not teach wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system.
Nonetheless, Maurice in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system ([0150] lines 1-2 ---" The afocal system 6 is an optical system allowing the radiation beam that is delivered thereto to be enlarged.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the afocal system as taught by Maurice for the benefit variably enlarging the laser beam.
Claim(s) 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 33, further in view of Odagiri et al (US 2016/0151857).
Regarding claim 44, Nomaru in view of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), but does not teach further comprising a combining optical system configured to combine the second light beam output from the split optical system with a third light beam different from the second light beam, wherein the condensing optical system condenses each of the third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam output from the combining optical system.
Nonetheless, Odagiri in the same field of endeavor being laser optical systems teaches further comprising: a combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) configured to combine the second light beam output from the split optical system with a third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) different from the second light beam, wherein the condensing optical system condenses each of the third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam output from the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 45, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 44), and Odagiri teaches wherein the second light beam and the third light beam are light beams having different wavelengths ([0028] lines 20-26 ---"The dichroic mirror 53 disposed between the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 and the condenser 52 has a function for reflecting and introducing the pulse laser beam LB oscillated from the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 to the condenser 52 and allowing light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB (in the present embodiment, 355 nm) to pass therethrough.”; Since the dichroic mirror allows light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB to pass therethrough, the second and third light beams must have different wavelengths.), and the combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) includes a dichroic mirror or a dichroic prism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the second and third light beams at different wavelengths and the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 46, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 44), and Odagiri teaches further comprising a position detection unit (Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) configured to irradiate the object with the third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) through the combining optical system and the condensing optical system and to detect a position of the object based on a fourth light beam that is a returned light of the third light beam from the object and that is detected through the condensing optical system and the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the irradiation means as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach first and second magnification optical systems of being “configured to change a lateral magnification or an angular magnification” of the first light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first and second magnification optical systems of Nomaru include two anamorphic prisms which are positionally controlled by driving mechanisms. The driving mechanisms change the orientation of the prisms such that the incident angles are varied to achieve both a laterally magnified first beam and plurality of second beams. (Nomaru Page 2 last para.; The beams are shown to be laterally magnified in figure 2.)
PNG
media_image1.png
500
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to apply the teachings of Kim et al. to the system of Nomaru et al. to provide Nomaru et al. with "a reflection apparatus that is disposed on an optical path of the second light beam output from the split optical system, and that includes a swingable reflective surface that reflects the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam, wherein an object is processed by the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam output from the condensing optical system." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not have been obvious to apply the teachings of Kim et al. to the system of Nomaru et al. to provide Nomaru et al. with "a reflection apparatus …,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The reflection apparatus of Kim is capable of diverting multiple beams as long as the beams are exposed to the reflecting surfaces of the reflecting apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights