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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1 and 15. Claims 3,6-10 and 14 stand as withdrawn. Claims 5 and 16 stand as cancelled. New claims 17-20 have been added.
Examiner acknowledges this Office Action is in response to the claim set filed 02/11/2026. Applicant has also submitted a Claim set and Remarks filed on 01/23/2026 as well as a Supplemental Amendment filed on 02/03/2026. Examiner notes the first paragraph of the Remarks filed 02/11/2026 states “Applicant respectfully requests to enter this revised response to the current Office Action dated October 27,2025 in lieu of the January 23 response and before entering the Supplemental Amendment of February 3,2026”
Examiner notes that claim 16 in the claim set filed 02/11/2026 includes an improper status identifier as disclosed in MPEP § 714 (C)(A). Claim 16 includes the status identifier of “Withdrawn and Cancelled)”, Examiner notes this is not a proper status identifier or an acceptable alternative statis identifier of “Canceled” as disclosed in MPEP § 714 (C)(E).
In response to this action, the status identifier of claim 16 must be corrected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2,4,11-13,15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 regarding the combination of Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi to anticipate the limitation of “the width of the ridge is three times or more as large as the 1/e2 width of the beam profiled in the lateral direction” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that Ohkubo discloses the values of [R] to be at least 2 times the 1/e2 width [WH] in paragraph [0045]. Fig. 4 shows the middle ridge portion [S] to have a distance [R] on both sides, resulting in a width of the device shown in Fig. 4 to be at least (2R+S), which then equates to (4*WH +S) as the minimum width of the device shown in Fig. 4. Even if the value of [R] in Ohkubo is disclosed as a distance value from the ridge portion, the final device shown in Fig. 4 still maintains at least a minimum value of (4*WH +S) as disclosed above. The device disclosed in Yokouchi Fig. 3 shows the ridge portion to extend the entire width of the device substrate and therefore the ridge shares the same width as the device as shown in Yokouchi. When the ridge structure of Ohkubo is extended the full width of the device structure, then the ridge must be at least (4*WH +S) as shown in Fig. 4 of Ohkubo.
Regarding the argument that Yokouchi teaches away from the requirement of “between the ridge width and the beam profile width explicitly recited by the newly amended independent claim”, Examiner notes that Yokouchi does not expressly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed and therefore does not teach away from the claimed invention [See MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1)]. Further, Yokouchi discloses the benefit of having a larger ridge width portion as shown in Fig. 3 of Yokouchi and disclosed in Col. 3, lines 1-20 of Yokouchi.
The same response to arguments as disclosed above further applies to the arguments regarding the combination of Ohkubo and Yokouchi in independent claims 15 and 19.
Regarding the argument that Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi fails to disclose the limitation of “a width of the ridge in the emission area is three times or more as large as a maximum width of the ridge in the gain area”, Examiner notes that Yokouchi discloses the narrow width of the ridge to have a width of 7µm and the wide width portion to have a width of 30µm as disclosed in Fig. 5 of Yokouchi (Yokouchi Col. 6, lines 23-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claims 1 and 15.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 limits “a second width of the beam profile is at least three times as wide as the first width on the emission end face in the emission area”. Examiner notes the specification discloses a first width [dx] of the beam profile that is wider than a width [W2] of the ridge in a gain area [A2] as shown in Fig. 4 of the claimed application. The application further discloses a “second” width of the beam profile [Φx] in the emission area [A1] but fails to disclose that this second width [Φx] is at least three times as wide as the first width [dx]. The application discloses that the ridge width [W1] as shown in Fig. 4 of the ridge portion [150_1] is set to three times or more the value of the second width [Φx] (Para. [0051] of the claimed application) but fails to disclose a relationship of the first width [dx] and the second width [Φx] where the second width [Φx] is at least three times as wide as the first width [dx].
Paragraph [0049] of the specification of the claimed application discloses that dx < Φx in the emission area [A1] but fails to disclose the second width to be at least three times as wide as the first width.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,2,4,11,12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (hereinafter Ohkubo) (US 20020024984 A1) in view of Yokouchi et al. (hereinafter Yokouchi) (US 6430203 B1) and Charache et al. (hereinafter Charache) (US 20060215719 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ohkubo discloses in Fig. 4,
A semiconductor laser device [Fig. 4] (Paras. [0042,0078]) is an edge-emitting semiconductor laser device [See Fig. 2] (Paras. [0018,0033], the semiconductor laser device comprising:
a laser resonator [40] (Para. [0078]) including a layered structure in which a lower cladding layer [16] (Para. [0079]), an active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]) formed directly on the lower cladding layer [16] (Paras. [0048,0079]), and an upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]) formed directly on the active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]), all of which are formed over a semiconductor substrate [12] (Para. [0078]), and a ridge [36] (Para. [0045]) that is formed on the upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]), the laser resonator emitting laser light having a beam profile [Fig. 8] (Paras. [0067,0071]),
wherein when viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate [12] (See Fig. 2), the laser resonator includes an emission area [Fig. 2 (2)] and [Fig. 3 (1)] on an emission end face [face shown in Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]),
wherein when the emission end face of the laser resonator is viewed in front [Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]), a virtual line defined by an intensity being 1/e2 of a peak intensity of the beam profile of the laser light [area 1 shown with WH and WV Fig. 3] (Paras. [0034,0038,0071]) fits inside the upper cladding layer [32] in the emission area
Examiner notes that the interpretation of “fits inside the upper cladding layer” is understood to not be limited to being inside only the upper cladding layer, as shown in Fig. 3B of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” the upper cladding layer is understood to mean indicating a source of support, as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Ohkubo fails to disclose,
the width of the ridge is three times or more as large as the 1/e2 width of the beam profile in the lateral direction, wherein the laser resonator further includes a contact layer formed on the ridge while the emission area lacks the contact layer but is covered by an insulation layer
Yokouchi discloses in Fig. 3,
a semiconductor laser device [B1] (Col. 3, line 35) with a ridge [A] (Col. 3, line 35) with a rectangular shape of the ridge [A] (Fig. 3) that includes a portion [A1 on side of S] that widens at a boundary between an emission area [A1 on side of S] and a smaller middle portion [S2] when viewed in plan [Fig.3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the widened ridge structure at the front of the device as shown in Yokouchi in place of the ridge structure of Ohkubo for the purpose of providing a laser device having no cracks formed on the emission face and preventing threshold current from rising. (Yokouchi Col. 3, lines 1-20)
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi fails to disclose,
wherein the laser resonator further includes a contact layer formed on the ridge while the emission area lacks the contact layer but is covered by an insulation layer
Charache discloses in Fig. 9,
a laser resonator [100’’] including a contact layer [10] (Para. [0063]) formed on the ridge [102] (Para. [0063]) while the emission area [14] (Para. [0063]) lacks the contact layer [10] (Para. [0063]) but is covered by an insulation layer [7] (Para. [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the contact layer and insulation structure of Charache into the modified device of Ohkubo for the purpose of having lower ohmic heating and temperature increases near the device facets. (Charache Para. [0066])
Regarding claim 2, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Yokouchi,
wherein when the semiconductor laser device (Yokouchi Fig. 3) (Col. 3, line 35) is viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate (Yokouchi Fig. 3) (Col. 3, line 35), a width of the ridge [A] widens at a boundary of the emission area [between A2 and A1] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
Regarding claim 4, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Yokouchi,
wherein when the emission end face is viewed in front (Yokouchi Fig. 3), a cross-sectional shape of the ridge [A Fig. 3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41) in the emission area is rectangular (Yokouchi Fig. 3), and the width of the ridge is larger than a 1/e2 width of the beam profile in a lateral direction.
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Regarding claim 11, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache as applied to claim 1 further discloses in Ohkubo Fig. 4,
wherein the active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]) includes at least one material selected from a group consisting of In, Ga, Al, As, P, and N. (Para. [0079])
Regarding claim 12, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache as applied to claim 1 further discloses in Ohkubo,
wherein when the semiconductor laser device is viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate (See Fig. 2) [12], the laser resonator includes a gain area [ridge waveguide away from emission facet Figs 2 and 3] adjacent to the emission area [emission facet Fig. 3], and the ridge in the gain area of the laser resonator is designed such that the laser light has a transverse single mode (Paras. [0034,0061,0086]).
Regarding claim 17, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 12 above and further discloses in Ohkubo,
wherein a width of the beam profile [area 1 shown with WH and WV Fig. 3] (Paras. [0034,0038,0071]) is wider than a width of the ridge [S Fig. 4] in the gaining area (See Ohkubo Figs. 3 and 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawanaka et al. (hereinafter Kawanaka) (US 20080181276 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a light-shielding groove is formed at a location adjacent to the emission area, the light-shielding groove extending in a direction orthogonal to the laser resonator.
Kawanaka discloses in Fig. 1,
a light-shielding groove [22] (Paras. [0137,1038]) is formed at a location adjacent to an emission area [emission face 20] (Para. [0132]), the light-shielding groove [22] extending in a direction orthogonal to the laser resonator [orthogonal to ridge 7] (Paras. [0132,0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the grooves of Kawanaka adjacent to the emission face of the modified device of Ohkubo for the purpose of preventing an exchange of light and to block light from returning towards the rear facet of the device. (Kawanaka Paras. [0139,0140])
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kanskar (US 20140301421 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and Charache discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 12 above and further discloses in Ohkubo,
wherein a first width of the beam profile is wider than a width of the ridge in the gaining area
The modified device of Ohkubo fails to disclose,
while a second width of the beam profile is at least three times as wide as the first width on the emission end face in the emission area.
Kanskar discloses in Fig. 2,
a second width [A] (Para. [0030]) of a beam profile is at least three times as wide as a first width [a] (Para. [0029]) on the emission end face [16] (Para. [0029]) in the emission area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the second width at least three times the first width as shown in Kanskar with the modified device of Ohkubo for the purpose of slow divergence across the slow axis. (Kanskar Para. [0031])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and further in view of Buchmann et al. (hereinafter Buchmann) (US 5032219 A).
Regarding claim 15,
A semiconductor laser device [Fig. 4] (Paras. [0042,0078]) is an edge-emitting semiconductor laser device [See Fig. 2] (Paras. [0018,0033], the semiconductor laser device comprising:
a laser resonator [40] (Para. [0078]) including a layered structure in which a lower cladding layer [16] (Para. [0079]), an active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]), and an upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]) are formed over a semiconductor substrate [12] (Para. [0078]), and a ridge [36] (Para. [0045]) that is formed on the upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]), the laser resonator emitting laser light having a beam profile [Fig. 8] (Paras. [0067,0071]),
wherein when viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate [12] (See Fig. 2), the laser resonator includes an emission area [Fig. 2 (2)] and [Fig. 3 (1)] on its emission end face [face shown in Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]), and a gain area [ridge waveguide away from emission facet Figs 2 and 3] adjacent to the emission area,
Ohkubo fails to disclose,
a width of the ridge widens stepwise at a boundary between the gain area and the emission area, and
a width of the ridge in the emission area is three times or more as large as a maximum width of the ridge in the gain area.
Yokouchi discloses in Fig. 3,
a semiconductor laser device [B1] (Col. 3, line 35) with a ridge [A] (Col. 3, line 35) that includes a portion [A1 on side of S] that widens at a boundary between an emission area [A1 on side of S] and a smaller middle portion [S2] when viewed in plan [Fig.3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the ridge structure of Yokouchi in place of the ridge structure of Ohkubo for the purpose of providing a laser device having no cracks formed on the emission face and preventing threshold current from rising. (Yokouchi Col. 3, lines 1-20)
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi fails to disclose,
a width of the ridge widens in a stepwise manner
Buchmann discloses in Fig. 2
A width of a ridge [17] (Col. 4, lines 18-20) widening from a narrow region to a wide region [23] (Col. 4, lines 18-20) in a stepwise manner (See Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the stepwise widening of the ridge portion as shown in Buchmann with the widened ridge portion of Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi for the purpose of having the entire widened region at a specific shortened length to minimize coupling loss. (Buchmann Col. 4, lines 32-39).
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” the upper cladding layer is understood to mean indicating a source of support, as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi.
Regarding claim 19, Ohkubo discloses,
A semiconductor laser device [Fig. 4] (Paras. [0042,0078]) is an edge-emitting semiconductor laser device [See Fig. 2] (Paras. [0018,0033], the semiconductor laser device comprising:
a laser resonator [40] (Para. [0078]) including a layered structure in which a lower cladding layer [16] (Para. [0079]), an active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]) formed directly on the lower cladding layer [16] (Paras. [0048,0079]), and an upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]) formed directly on the active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]), all of which are formed over a semiconductor substrate [12] (Para. [0078]), and a ridge [36] (Para. [0045]) that is formed on and by the upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]) having an emission area [Fig. 2 (2) and Fig. 3 (1)] and a gain area [ridge waveguide away from emission facet Figs 2 and 3],
wherein when viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate [12] (See Fig. 2), the emission area [Fig. 2 (2) and Fig. 3 (1)] is located on an emission end face [face shown in Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]),
a laser resonator [10] emitting laser light having a beam profile [area 1 shown with WH and WV Fig. 3] (Paras. [0034,0038,0071])
wherein when the emission end face of the laser resonator is viewed in front [Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]), a virtual line defined by an intensity being 1/e2 of a peak intensity of the beam profile of the laser light [area 1 shown with WH and WV Fig. 3] (Paras. [0034,0038,0071]) fits inside the upper cladding layer [32] in the emission area,
Ohkubo fails to disclose,
the width of the ridge is three times or more as large as the 1/e2 width of the beam profile in the lateral direction
Examiner notes that the interpretation of “fits inside the upper cladding layer” is understood to not be limited to being inside only the upper cladding layer, as shown in Fig. 3B of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” the upper cladding layer is understood to mean indicating a source of support, and “by” the upper cladding layer is understood to mean in proximity to as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Ohkubo fails to disclose,
the width of the ridge is three times or more as large as the 1/e2 width of the beam profile in the lateral direction, wherein the laser resonator further includes a contact layer formed on the ridge while the emission area lacks the contact layer but is covered by an insulation layer
Yokouchi discloses in Fig. 3,
a semiconductor laser device [B1] (Col. 3, line 35) with a ridge [A] (Col. 3, line 35) with a rectangular shape of the ridge [A] (Fig. 3) that includes a portion [A1 on side of S] that widens at a boundary between an emission area [A1 on side of S] and a smaller middle portion [S2] when viewed in plan [Fig.3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the widened ridge structure at the front of the device as shown in Yokouchi in place of the ridge structure of Ohkubo for the purpose of providing a laser device having no cracks formed on the emission face and preventing threshold current from rising. (Yokouchi Col. 3, lines 1-20)
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Charache
Regarding claim 20, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Ohkubo,
wherein the laser resonator further including a contact layer [38 Fig. 1] (Para. [0044]) formed on the ridge [S Fig. 4] (Para. [0038])
Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi fails to disclose,
while the emission area lacks the contact layer but is covered by an insulation layer.
Charache discloses in Fig. 9,
a laser resonator [100’’] including a contact layer [10] (Para. [0063]) formed on the ridge [102] (Para. [0063]) while the emission area [14] (Para. [0063]) lacks the contact layer [10] (Para. [0063]) but is covered by an insulation layer [7] (Para. [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the contact layer and insulation structure of Charache into the modified device of Ohkubo for the purpose of having lower ohmic heating and temperature increases near the device facets. (Charache Para. [0066])
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights