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
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on May 19, 2026.
Receipt and entry of the amendments to the specification, of the amended abstract, of the amended claims, and of applicant’s remarks filed on May 19, 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 20 remain pending and all have been amended, either directly or indirectly, via the aforementioned reply. Claim 6 has been canceled.
The amendment to the specification (i.e., specifically the amendments to paragraph [0053]) filed on May 19, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: there is no support in either the originally filed disclosure of the instant application or in the priority document (i.e., the corresponding provisional application, Application No. 63/311,185, as noted in greater detail below) that component 140 in Figure 1 corresponds to circuitry instead of to a semiconductor as originally disclosed. The original specification clearly states that a semiconductor or processor corresponds to component 140 in Figure 1. There is no clear support in original paragraph [0053] that the cited sensor and circuitry is to be specifically located at the same location as (i.e., at the bottom of substrate 110), and to be specifically disposed in lieu of semiconductor 140 as part of the inventive system, as now specified in amended paragraph [0053]. Therefore, regardless of applicant’s intention, and absent proper additional support in the corresponding priority document, the proposed amendments to paragraph [0053] constitute impermissible new matter
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are generally not persuasive.
For example, applicant has argued that the amendments to paragraph [0053] “clarify that element 140 was intended to refer to a generic component requiring heat transfer” and not specifically just to a semiconductor. However, as noted in greater detail below, there is no evidence, either in the instant application or in the priority document (i.e., in the corresponding provisional application), that element 140 “was intended to refer to a generic component requiring heat transfer”. Furthermore, paragraph [0053] has not even been amended to state that any one of the semiconductor, sensor, and circuitry are depicted as a generic component 140; instead, paragraph [0053] has been amended to specify that the circuitry is “shown as component 140”, thus rendering applicant’s argument not commensurate with the amendments made to paragraph [0053]. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive with respect to this issue. The amended paragraph is deemed to include impermissible new matter and the objection to the drawings has been maintained. The examiner, however, wishes to note that applicant may attempt to address the objection to the drawings by merely making a more persuasive argument relating to the same. Applicant is invited to contact the examiner for an interview if further discussion relating to this matter is warranted.
Applicant has stated that the previous objections to the specification and abstract have been obviated via the respective amendments. However, applicant’s amendments have not properly addressed all of the objections cited by the examiner in the previous Office action. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive with respect to this matter.
Applicant has similarly stated that the previous indefiniteness rejections of the claims have been obviated via the respective amendments to the claims. However, applicant’s amendments have not fully addressed all of the indefiniteness issues cited by the examiner in the previous Office action. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are similarly unpersuasive with respect to this matter.
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., that the grooves are randomly oriented per se) are not recited in the previously rejected claims. 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).
While the limitations relating to the grooves being “randomly oriented” are recited in the amended claims, these limitations are still indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby as explained in greater detail below. The newly recited protection sought thereby as noted in greater detail below. For example, absent further limiting language in the claims and absent a clear definition or description in the original disclosure, it is not at all clear relative to which particular direction(s) or with respect to which element(s) of the inventive system the grooves must be disposed in a random fashion in order to meet the newly recited limitation of being “randomly oriented” as recited in the claims. Also, applicant is respectively reminded that pending claims are to be interpreted as broadly as reasonable. Applicant’s remarks, however, appear to be based on a relatively narrow (and unsupported) interpretation of the term “randomly oriented”.
For example, applicant argues that Fu et al. fails to teach or show that the grooves are “randomly oriented” as now required by the pending claims as amended. In support of this argument, applicant notes that neither Figure 1(d) or Figure 1(g) shows the grooves as being “randomly oriented” because Fu et al. shows the grooves as being parallel to each other. However, this interpretation very narrowly and improperly focuses only on one possible interpretation of the indefinite term “randomly oriented” and on only one possible orientation of the many relative orientations embodied by the grooves of Fu et al. For example, Fu et al., as explained in greater detail below, quite clearly shows the heights of the grooves 10 as being randomly oriented as shown in Figure 1(d) and also quite clearly shows the physical barriers 18 as being staggered and offset in a random fashion in Figure 1(g), which cause the grooves 10 to be randomly offset from each other at least in one orientation. Figures 1(c) and 1(e) show additional exemplary embodiments with grooves 10 which are randomly oriented relative to each other at least broadly interpreted as required for pending claims. It is further noted that the claims as written do not require that all of the grooves are randomly oriented relative to each other nor would that requirement be supported by the original disclosure of the instant application.
Applicant’s arguments relating to the non-applicability of the Fu et al. reference are thus found to be unpersuasive as well.
Applicant has not presented any separate arguments related to the obviousness rejections of the claims (i.e., other than relating to Fu et al. as being the base reference) as previously presented by the examiner, and thus appears to have acquiesced relating to the matters relating to obviousness as set forth by the examiner. In response to applicant's arguments against the Fu et al. reference individually as previously set forth above, the examiner respectfully reminds applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Election/Restriction
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected first species or the embodiment characterized by each of the plurality of grooves being oriented in a first direction on the at least one external surface of the substrate and not in a random fashion, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4, 2025 as supplemented via the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/311,185, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, as follows. Each of claim 7 and claim 17 of the instant application recites “the substrate is comprised of a material selected from the group consisting of a polymer, metal, dielectric, and metal”, whereas the aforementioned prior application only provides proper support for the substrate comprising a polymer or a metal, but not for the substrate comprising a dielectric. Additionally, the prior application fails to mention or otherwise provide support for any of the subject matter of claim 12 of the instant application.
Accordingly, upon careful reconsideration, claims 7, 12, and 17 of the instant application are not entitled to the benefit of the aforementioned prior application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): a sensor or circuity in thermal communication with the infusing liquid as recited in claim 12; note that the drawings only show a semiconductor (such as a processor) 140 in thermal communication with the infusing liquid 130 as recited in claim 12, but fail to show either a sensor or circuitry as recited in claim 12. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The amended abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it still does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “are provided”), because it still does not avoid referring to the purported merits of the invention (i.e., “for increasing heat transfer”), and because it contains a grammatical informality (i.e., “The systems include” should be replaced with “The system includes” for improved grammatical correctness). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment to the specification (i.e., specifically the amendments to paragraph [0053]) filed on May 19, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: there is no support in either the originally filed disclosure of the instant application or in the priority document (i.e., the corresponding provisional application, Application No. 63/311,185, as noted in greater detail below) that component 140 in Figure 1 corresponds to circuitry instead of to a semiconductor as originally disclosed. The original specification clearly states that a semiconductor or processor corresponds to component 140 in Figure 1. There is no clear support in original paragraph [0053] that the cited sensor and circuitry is to be specifically located at the same location as (i.e., at the bottom of substrate 110), and to be specifically disposed in lieu of semiconductor 140 as part of the inventive system, as now specified in amended paragraph [0053]. Therefore, regardless of applicant’s intention, and absent proper additional support in the corresponding priority document, the proposed amendments to paragraph [0053] constitute impermissible new matter
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1 through 3, 7 through 14, and 17 through 20 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.
The term “randomly oriented” in each of base claims 1 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “randomly oriented” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is not at all clear with respect to which particular direction(s) or with respect to which element(s) of the inventive system the grooves must be disposed in a random fashion in order to meet the newly recited limitation of being “randomly oriented” as recited in the claims. Thus, as used to qualify the disposition of the grooves, this term renders the same indeterminate and the metes and bounds of protection sought by each of claim 1 and of claim 13 (and by all claims depending therefrom) indefinite. For examination purposes, the term “randomly oriented” will be interpreted as being readable on any pattern of grooves which is not fully symmetric and/or which has at least some aspects or elements which are randomly oriented relative to one another.
Each of claims 7 and 17 still improperly recites “metal” as an alternative twice per claim, thus resulting in an improper double recitation of the same. Additionally, upon reconsideration, some polymers are also dielectric, so there is overlap between these two alternatives in claims 7 and 17 which further still renders indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the Markush limitations in these claims.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 3, 7, 8, 11 through 14, and 17 through 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0122677 A1).
With regard to claim 1 as amended, Fu et al. {i.e., see Figure 2a and Figure 2(b)} discloses a system for increasing heat transfer from a substrate to a working fluid comprising: a bottom substrate comprising a plurality of grooves 10 (i.e., “liquid-infused pattern”) on at least one external surface of the substrate; an infusing liquid filling at least a majority of the plurality of grooves; a working fluid {i.e., which flows in through the inlet port and out through the outlet slot; see parallel flow arrows in Figure 2(a) which are parallel to the substrate} “configured to flow parallel to the external surface”. Additionally, Fu et al. also shows the plurality of grooves 10 as being oriented in at least a somewhat random fashion on the at least one external surface {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0010] and [0013], which refer to Figure 1(d) and Figure 1(g)}. Figure 1(d) shows the random orientation/pattern as including grooves 10 of different heights/depths randomly oriented relative to each other whereas Figure 1(g) shows the random orientation/pattern as including grooves 10 of random lengths which are separated by offset transverse barriers 18 which cause the grooves 10 to be randomly offset from each other at least in one orientation, thus creating a random pattern of grooves with each of these aforementioned features being at least broadly readable (as required for pending claims) on the indefinite limitations relating to the grooves being “randomly oriented“ as now newly recited by claim 1.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Fu et al. also discloses that the plurality of grooves or cavities 10 are micro-scaled {i.e., see paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0065]} or nano- scaled {i.e., see at least paragraph [0065]}, and that the grooves are rectangular {i.e., see Figure 1(b) and 1(c ) at least}.
With regard to claim 7, Fu et al. discloses that the substrate can be a polymer {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0078] and [0079]}, an electro-active polymer {i.e., see at least paragraph [0079]}, acrylic {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0032], [0124], [0125], [0127]}, or metallic {i.e., see at least paragraph [0075]}. Note that electro-active polymers are a subset of dielectric materials and/or are inherently at least somewhat dielectric.
With regard to claim 8, Fu et al. discloses that the infusing liquid can be a hydrocarbon oil or a liquid metal {i.e., see at least paragraph [0060]}.
With regard to claim 11, Fu et al. discloses that the working or external fluid can be water or an aqueous mixture {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0059], [0098], [0111], [0116]}.
With regard to claim 12, Fu et al. discloses circuitry (i.e., fluid circuits) in thermal communication with the infusing liquid {i.e., see at least paragraph [0050]}.
With regard to claim 13 as amended (and similarly to claim 1 as amended), Fu et al. discloses a method for providing increased heat transfer, comprising: flowing a working fluid parallel to an external surface of a substrate {i.e., which flows in through the inlet port and out through the outlet slot; see parallel flow arrows in Figure 2(a) which are parallel to the substrate}, the external surface comprising a plurality of grooves 10 and an infusing liquid filling at least a majority of the plurality of grooves 10 such that the working fluid thermally communicates with the infusing liquid and the plurality of grooves 10. Additionally, Fu et al. also shows the plurality of grooves 10 as being oriented in at least a somewhat random fashion on the at least one external surface {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0010] and [0013], which refer to Figure 1(d) and Figure 1(g)}. Figure 1(d) shows the random orientation/pattern as including grooves 10 of different heights/depths randomly oriented relative to each other whereas Figure 1(g) shows the random orientation/pattern as including grooves 10 of random lengths with offset transverse barriers 18 which cause the grooves 10 to be randomly offset from each other at least in one orientation, with each of these aforementioned features being at least broadly readable (as required for pending claims) on the indefinite limitations relating to the grooves being “randomly oriented“ as now newly recited by claim 13.
With regard to claim 14, Fu et al. discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the plurality of grooves or cavities 10 are micro-scaled {i.e., see paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0065]} or nano- scaled {i.e., see at least paragraph [0065]}.
With regard to claim 17, Fu et al. further discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the substrate is comprised of a polymer {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0078] and [0079]}, an electro-active polymer {i.e., see at least paragraph [0079]}, acrylic {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0032], [0124], [0125], [0127]}, or metallic {i.e., see at least paragraph [0075]}. Note that electro-active polymers are a subset of dielectric materials and/or are inherently at least somewhat dielectric.
With regard to claim 18, Fu et al. further discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the infusing liquid is comprised of a hydrocarbon or a liquid metal {i.e., see at least paragraph [0060]}.
With regard to claim 19, Fu et al. further discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the working or external fluid can be water or an aqueous mixture {i.e., see at least paragraphs [0059], [0098], [0111], [0116]}.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0122677 A1) in view of Singh et al. (“Self-healing atypical liquid-infused surfaces: Super hydrophobicity and superoleophobicity in submerged conditions”).
As noted in greater detail above with regard to claim 8 from which claims 9 and 10 depend, Fu et al. discloses a heat transfer system wherein the infusing liquid is comprised of a hydrocarbon, but does not specify that the hydrocarbon is either an alkane as recited in claim 9 or an alkane with a carbon chain of 6 to 18 carbons in length. However, it is known in the art of liquid-infused surfaces and taught by Singh et al. to specifically use alkanes of various carbon chains as the hydrocarbons of choice in liquid-infused surfaces to facilitate self-healing properties of the liquid-infused surfaces, thus enhancing thermal performance of the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the liquid-infused substrate and heat transfer system of Fu et al. by specifically using hydrocarbons which are multi-carbon alkane compounds as taught by Singh et al. in order to promote self-healing and thermal performance of the heat transfer system of Fu et al.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0122677 A1).
As noted in greater detail above with regard to claim 13 from which claim 20 depends, Fu et al. discloses a heat transfer method whereby an aqueous working fluid flows over an inventive liquid-infused patterned substrate, but while Fu et al. does suggest {i.e., see paragraph [0020]} that the flow rate of the working fluid is a results-effective variable that affects the performance of the inventive apparatus, Fu et al. does not specify that the flow rate is controlled based on a measured temperature of the working fluid. Nevertheless, it is well-known in the art of heat transfer in general to control the working fluid flow rate based on a measured temperature of the working fluid in order to optimize the heat transfer rate for any given application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat transfer method of Fu et al. by specifically modifying the flow rate based on a measured temperature of the working fluid in order to optimize the heat transfer effected by convection, for example.
Conclusion
The additional prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights