DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 and 3-15 are examined.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “not via any reflection surface” in the last line. It is unclear if “any reflection surface” is reciting to “an introductory reflection surface”, “a scattering reflection surface”, or another “reflection surface”, rendering the limitation indefinite. For examination purposes, “any reflection surface” will be interpreted as reciting additional separate reflection surfaces and read as “any other reflection surface”.
As claims 3-15 ultimately depend on claim 1, claims 3-15 are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5748222) in view of Brookhyser (US 2022/0048135 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts discloses an optical apparatus (c. 8, L. 55-57 – laser engraving head 6) for emitting a modulated beam onto a target object (c. 8, L. 55-57 – of a laser engraving machine for engraving), comprising:
an illumination optical system (c. 11, L. 30-36 – a lens of positive focal lens, acousto-optic devices) for collimating a laser beam emitted from a laser light source (c. 11, L. 30-36 – acousto-optic devices with an incident beam that is near collimation) into a predetermined shape (c. 11, L. 30-36 – lens brings the zero and first order beams to a focus at its focal length);
an optical modulator (c. 9, L. 7-14 – acousto-optic modulator 12) for modulating said laser beam collimated by said illumination optical system into a modulated beam (c. 9, L. 25-42 – 12 is an acousto-optic deflector, deflection of the beam over a range of different angles); and
a projection optical system for guiding said modulated beam onto a target object (c. 9, L. 1 – lens L),
wherein said projection optical system comprises a light shielding unit (c. 11, L. 27-29, claim 1 - beam stop 50) for passing a zero-order diffracted beam from said optical modulator therethrough (c. 11, L. 30-44 – zero and first order beams focus at its focal length, so beams are well separated for selective absorption of one) and blocking a first-order diffracted beam (c. 11, L. 27-29 – absorb a diffracted order beam of high power from acousto-optic device; c. 11, L. 40-44 – mirror is used to deflect the unwanted beam so that it diverges and reaches an absorber obliquely over a wide area),
said light shielding unit comprises:
a zero-order diffracted beam aperture (c. 10, L. 42 – zeroth order stop; claim 7 – aperture 51) positioned in vicinity of a focus position of said zero-order diffracted beam on an optical axis of said zero-order diffracted beam (FIG. 5 and 12 depict 51 in vicinity of focus position of diffracted order beam of acousto-optic modulator 12), for passing said zero-order diffracted beam therethrough (c. 11, L. 30-44 – zero and first order beams focus at its focal length, so the beams are well separated for selective absorption of one);
PNG
media_image1.png
416
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roberts FIG. 5
an introductory reflection surface (c. 11, L. 40-43, claim 7 - mirror surface 52) positioned in vicinity of a focus position of said first-order diffracted beam on an optical axis of said first-order diffracted beam and in vicinity of said zero-order diffracted beam aperture, for reflecting said first-order diffracted beam in a direction deviating from an incident direction of said first-order diffracted beam and going away from said optical axis of said zero-order diffracted beam (c. 11, L. 40-43, claim 1 - 52 to deflect the unwanted beam);
a light guide path having an introduction port (FIG. 5 depicts an opening for 50, where beam enters);
a light absorbing part (c. 11, L. 40-43, claim 7 – absorber 53) for absorbing light guided while being diffused by said light guide path (c. 11, L. 40-43, claim 7 – unwanted beam diverges and reaches an absorber obliquely over a wide area)
wherein said introductory reflection surface is a mirror-finished surface (c. 11, L. 40-43, claim 7 - mirror surface 52).
Roberts discloses aperture 51 is for passing one beam order and an absorbing surface arranged to receive and absorb the reflected unwanted beam order (claim 7).
Roberts does not disclose a light guide path having an introduction port to which light from said introductory reflection surface is incident and guiding light introduced from said introduction port, which is surrounded by a light shielding member, wherein said light guide path comprises therein a scattering reflection surface for reflecting and guiding while scattering light from said introductory reflection surface, and wherein said first-order diffracted beam going from said introductory reflection surface is directly incident to said scattering reflection surface not via nay reflection surface.
Brookhyser discloses a laser processing apparatus including a laser source 104, a first positioner 106, and a plurality of scan lenses 112 (¶ [0043]). The first positioner 106 is provided as an acousto-optic deflector (AOD) system, or the like (¶ [0065]) and may optionally include one or more other optical components, such as a beam trap, beam expander, beam shaper, aperture, lens, mirror, or the like or any combination thereof (¶ [0113]). The diffracting the incident beam of laser energy produces a diffraction pattern that includes zeroth- and first-order diffraction peaks referred to as “zeroth-order” beam and “first-order” beam (¶ [0069]). An integrated beam dump system addresses problems associated with separately-provided components of a beam dump system and can be easily incorporated into the beam path assembly, to align an optical input of the integrated beam dump system with any unwanted beam paths (¶ [0121]). An integrated beam dump system 700 includes surfaces 704 and 706 as pickoff mirrors (¶ [0128]).
Brookhyser further discloses a light guide path (¶ [0115] – 106 includes one or more beam dump systems to capture and absorb (trap) laser energy propagating along unwanted beam paths from an AOD; ¶ [0128], FIG. 7 – integrated beam dump system 700) having an introduction port (¶ [0134] – opening 720 functions as the optical input of 700) to which light from said introductory reflection surface is incident and guiding light introduced from said introduction port (¶ [0128] – surfaces 704, 706 divert laser energy propagating along unwanted beam paths), which is surrounded by a light shielding member (¶ [0128] – frame 702),
PNG
media_image2.png
474
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 7
wherein said light guide path comprises therein a scattering reflection surface (¶ [0128] –surface 708) for reflecting and guiding while scattering light (¶ [0128] – 708, which reflects the diverted laser energy to the beam trap 718) from said introductory reflection surface (¶ [0128] – 704, 706 divert laser energy propagating along unwanted beam paths to the surface 708), and
wherein said first-order diffracted beam (¶ [0132-0133] – unwanted beam path 800, 900) going from said introductory reflection surface (¶ [0128] – surfaces 704, 706) is directly incident to said scattering reflection surface (¶ [0128] – divert laser energy to the surface 708) not via any reflection surface (as depicted in FIG. 8-9 the unwanted beams are directed to 708 and not from other reflection surfaces).
PNG
media_image3.png
535
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
533
667
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 8-9
Roberts and Brookhyser disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to beam shaping/diffusion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the integrated beam dump comprising reflective surfaces in Brookhyser to the laser engraving head in Roberts to addresses problems associated with separately-provided components of a beam dump system and align an optical input of the integrated beam dump system with any unwanted beam paths (¶ [0121]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 2. Roberts does not disclose wherein said scattering reflection surface has a linear fine unevenness extending along a plane parallel to both a depth direction up to said scattering reflection surface and another depth direction from said scattering reflection surface in said light guide path.
Brookhyser discloses integrated beam dump system 700 comprising surfaces 704, 706 that divert laser energy propagating along unwanted beam paths to the surface 708, which reflects the diverted laser energy to the beam trap 718 (¶ [0128], FIG. 7).
Brookhyser discloses wherein said scattering reflection surface has a linear fine unevenness (¶ [0129] – 704, 706, 708 made reflective by grinding or polishing operations; would therefore have linear fine unevenness) extending along a plane parallel to both a depth direction up to said scattering reflection surface and another depth direction from said scattering reflection surface in said light guide path.
Roberts and Brookhyser disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to beam shaping/diffusion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the integrated beam dump comprising reflective surfaces in Brookhyser to the laser engraving head in Roberts to addresses problems associated with separately-provided components of a beam dump system and align an optical input of the integrated beam dump system with any unwanted beam paths (¶ [0121]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1.
Roberts discloses in FIG. 5 the deflecting mirror 52 is positioned behind the lens 50 and is not positioned in the focal plane of 50.
Modified Roberts does not explicitly disclose wherein said introductory reflection surface is disposed on a frontward side of said focus position of said first-order diffracted beam on said optical axis of said first-order diffracted beam, and said first-order diffracted beam is focused between a reflection surface to which light from said introductory reflection surface is directly incident and said introductory reflection surface in said light guide path.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention recognize that the mirror can be placed behind or in front of the focal plane. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be would be motivated to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143. The finite number of identified, predictable solutions are positioning the mirror behind or in front of the focal plane.
Regarding claim 6, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Roberts discloses wherein said light shielding unit further comprises a cooling channel disposed in vicinity of said light absorbing part, inside which a coolant flows (c. 7, L. 40-52 – the section supporting the zero-order stop contains ducts for a coolant such as water). Cooling could also be achieved by a heat sink and forced air or convection (c. 7, L. 40-52).
Regarding claim 7, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 6. Modified Roberts further discloses wherein a cooling channel inside which a coolant flows is disposed also in vicinity of said light guide path (c. 7, L. 40-52 – the section supporting the zero-order stop contains ducts for a coolant such as water, as ducts are part of zero-order stop, they are in vicinity of said light guide path).
Regarding claim 8, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1.
Roberts discloses a beam stop 50 to absorb a diffracted order beam of high power from acousto-optic device (c. 11, L. 27-29) and unwanted beam diverges and reaches an absorber 53 obliquely over a wide area (c. 11, L. 40-43, claim 7). Brookhyser discloses in FIG. 7 that 700 comprises two openings 722, 724 for two beam paths 114, 300 (¶ [0134]) and surfaces 710, 712, 714, and 716 are provided as optically absorptive surfaces (¶ [0130]).
Modified Roberts does not explicitly disclose wherein said light shielding unit is provided with a secondary light absorption part for absorbing a second-order diffracted beam from said optical modulator, on an outer surface extending in a direction perpendicular to said optical axis of said zero-order diffracted beam in said zero-order diffracted beam aperture and a circumference of said introductory reflection surface.
However, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI B). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an additional light absorption part for absorbing a second-order beam.
Regarding claim 9, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Roberts discloses wherein said light guide path (720 where 114 enters 700) extends in parallel to a plane perpendicular to said optical axis of said zero-order diffracted beam 114 (See annotated FIG. 7 of Brookhyser).
PNG
media_image5.png
474
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 7
Regarding claim 10, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 9. Modified Roberts discloses wherein said light guide path extends while bending in a circumference of said zero-order diffracted beam aperture 720, to thereby surround said zero-order diffracted beam aperture (See annotated FIG. 7 of Brookhyser where the interior 726 of 700 is shaped with an extension while bending in a circumference of 720).
PNG
media_image6.png
474
647
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 7
Regarding claim 11, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Roberts discloses wherein said introductory reflection surface 704, 706 is part of a circumferential inclined surface surrounding a circumference of said zero-order diffracted beam aperture 702 (Brookhyser FIG. 8-9 depicts 704 and 706 surrounding 702) and going away from said optical axis of said zero-order diffracted beam as it goes from a frontward side to a backward side in an optical axis direction of said zero-order diffracted beam (Brookhyser FIG. 8-9 depicts the beam does from a frontward to backward side of optical axis direction at 702), and said light guide path is part of an annular space extending radially outward from said circumferential inclined surface (Brookhyser FIG. 8-9 depict the inside of 700 extending radially outward from circumferential inclined surface 704, 706).
PNG
media_image7.png
516
721
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
514
640
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 8-9
Regarding claim 12, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Roberts discloses wherein said zero-order diffracted beam and said first-order diffracted beam 800, 900 are each a planar beam extending in an up-and-down direction (Brookhyser FIG. 7 depicts the beams 800, 900 diffracted in an up-and-down direction),
PNG
media_image9.png
529
738
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
531
662
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 8-9
said light guide path comprises a pair of reflection surfaces 708 and 710, 712, 714, 716 (Brookhyser ¶ [0128] – reflective surface 708 and surface 710, 712, 714, 716; ¶ [0132-133] – 708 reflect laser energy, some laser energy may be reflected at 716 to 712 and back, or at 710 to 714 and back), which extend in a direction inclined to said optical axis of said zero-order diffracted beam and said up-and-down direction (Brookhyser FIG. 8-9 depicts 708 and 710, 712, 714, 716 included to the diffracted beam and up-and-down direction),
PNG
media_image11.png
540
753
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
538
672
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 8-9
said introductory reflection surface 704, 706 is an end portion (Brookhyser FIG. 8-9 depicts 704, 706 on a end) on a side closer to said zero-order diffracted beam on one reflection surface 708 among said pair of reflection surfaces 708, 710, 712, 714, 716 (Brookhyser depicts in FIG. 8-9 that 704, 706 on a side closer to the diffracted beam on 708), and light from said introductory reflection surface is guided in said light guide path (Brookhyser FIG. 8-9 depicts the diffracted beam 800, 900 reflected at 704, 706 and guided in the interior of 700) while reciprocating between said pair of reflection surfaces (¶ [0132-133] – 708 reflect laser energy, some laser energy may be reflected at 716 to 712 and back, or at 710 to 714 and back).
PNG
media_image13.png
531
741
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
544
677
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Brookhyser FIG. 8-9
Modified Roberts does not explicitly disclose said light guide path comprises a pair of reflection surfaces parallel to each other.
However, as modified Roberts discloses surfaces 704 and 706 divert laser energy propagating along unwanted beam paths to the surface 708, which reflects the diverted laser energy to the beam trap 718 (¶ [0129]) and that the beam dump system can be designed differently, such as the beam dump system 1000 depicted in FIG. 10 (¶ [0135]), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would design the beam dump system with surfaces positioned throughout, including a pair of reflection surfaces parallel to each other, so as it reflects the diverted laser energy to the beam trap 718 (¶ [0129]) and to align an optical input of the integrated beam dump system with any unwanted beam paths (¶ [0121]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would position the surfaces of the dump system based on design needs of the final product. “A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)..
Regarding claim 13, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said introductory reflection surface and said light guide path are provided in one cutting block formed by cutting processing (¶ [0125] – surface of frame can be etched, roughened, etc.; ¶ [0131] – frame 702 can be formed by machining a block).
Regarding claim 14, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 13. Modified Roberts wherein said light shielding unit blocks a plurality of first-order diffracted beams from said optical modulator (Roberts c. 11, L. 27-29 – absorb a diffracted order beam of high power from acousto-optic device), said light shielding unit comprises a plurality of light shielding parts corresponding to said plurality of first-order diffracted beams, respectively, each light shielding part comprises said introductory reflection surface 704, 706 and said light guide path (interior of 700), and respective relative positions of said plurality of light shielding parts to said zero-order diffracted beam aperture are variable (Brookhyser depicts in FIG. 8-9 that 704, 706 are at variable positions). In another embodiment, Brookhyser FIG. 10 depicts a beam dump system 1000 with variable positions for reflective surfaces 1006, 1008.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5748222) in view of Brookhyser (US 2022/0048135 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Rigby (WO 2007/113567 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Roberts discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Roberts does not disclose wherein said light absorbing part comprises an uneven surface provided with a light absorbing film on a surface thereof.
Analogous art Rigby discloses an optical beam dump comprising a passage defined by a passage wall, an optical filter mounted in an opening in the passage wall, and the filter being aligned such that any of the light striking the filter that is reflected is reflected along the passage, in a direction away from the input end (pg. 4, L. 4-14).
Rigby discloses wherein said light absorbing part comprises an uneven surface provided with a light absorbing film on a surface thereof (pg. 9, L. 1-18 – internal walls of the tube 31 are coated with a light-absorbing material). Due to the design of the tube 31 light must reflect from surfaces a number of times to be reflected back out of the beam dump 30 and so the amount of light leaving 30 is negligible (pg. 9, L. 14-18). Reflecting light off the filter in a direction away from the input end is advantageous, because it reduces the likelihood of the reflected light escaping from the beam dump and affecting measurements (pg. 4, L. 30 – pg. 5, L. 2).
Roberts and Rigby disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to beam shaping/diffusion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the light-absorbing coating on the internal walls in Rigby to the absorber in modified Roberts so the amount of light leaving 30 is negligible (pg. 9, L. 14-18) and reduces the likelihood of the reflected light escaping from the beam dump and affecting measurements (pg. 4, L. 30 – pg. 5, L. 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5748222) in view of Brookhyser (US 2022/0048135 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Herzog (US 2018/0111318 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Roberts discloses said optical apparatus according to claim 1. Modified Roberts does not disclose use of the optical apparatus in a three-dimensional modeling apparatus.
Analogous art Herzog discloses a exposure device 7 provided with a collimating device 8 comprising collimating lens to collimate, i.e., to parallelize, the divergent laser beam and is connected to the beam path, and a modulation device optically connected downstream of 8 to changing or modulating at least one laser beam parameter (¶ [0035-0038]).
Herzog discloses a three-dimensional modeling apparatus (¶ [0034] – apparatus 1 which additive manufacturing is performed), comprising:
a laser light source for emitting said laser beam (¶ [0036] – laser beam generation device 4 for generating a laser beam 5) to said optical apparatus (¶ [0037] – 8 serves to collimate 5 emanated from 4); and a scanning part (¶ [0048] – beam deflection device 14 (scanner device)) which is said target object irradiated with said modulated beam from said optical apparatus and scans said modulated beam on a modeling material (¶ [0048] – 14 deflect 5 to respective construction material layers to be selectively solidified). Changing the beam properties of the laser beam which can be realized by means of the modulation device, an improved quality of the objects manufactured can be realized and is advantageous especially for the processing of construction materials that are difficult to process (¶ [0016]).
Roberts and Herzog disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to beam shaping/diffusion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied modulation device in an additive manufacturing apparatus in Rigby to the stop and apparatus in modified Roberts for an improved quality of the objects manufactured can be realized and is advantageous especially for the processing of construction materials that are difficult to process (¶ [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Robert’s disclosure of “unwanted beam so that it diverges and reaches an absorber obliquely over a wide area” is not “a scattering reflection surface” inside a “light guide path” that “reflect[s] and guid[es] while scattering” the light from the introductory reflection surface as recited in the claims.
See updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Robert in view of Brookhyser above, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant argues Brookhyser teaches the opposite of “a scattering reflection surface “in” the light guide path, and that the first-order diffracted beam leaving the introductory reflection surface is “directly incident” to that scattering reflection surface “not via any reflection surface” and it uses multiple reflection surfaces before the beam reaches the beam trap.
The instant specification in ¶ [0054] recites “the introduced first-order light going from the introductory reflection surface 41 toward the (+Y) direction is directly incident to the first internal reflection surface (scattering reflection surface) 421 not via any reflection surface”, “the first-order light incident to 421 from 41 is reflected toward the (+Z) direction and goes toward the second internal reflection surface 422”, and “reflected by 422 toward the (-Y) direction and goes toward the third internal reflection surface 423”. As depicted in instant Fig. 6, the diffracted beam uses multiple internal reflection surfaces/scattering reflection surfaces 421, 422, 423 to reach light absorbing part 43.
PNG
media_image15.png
690
595
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Instant specification FIG. 6
Therefore, in line with the instant claims and disclosure, the surface 704, 706 are “introductory reflection surface” and the surface 708 is a “scattering reflection surface” as presented above in the rejection of Robert in view of Brookhyser.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues the present application teach benefits in a manner not explained in the applied references.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach benefits of suppressing leakage and temperature rise, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues the present application explains that a mirror-finished introductory reflection surface substantially totally reflects without being scattered, and that scattering surfaces inside the light guide path further diffuse the introduced light.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., does not use multiple reflection surfaces before the beam reaches the beam trap) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754