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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed October 21, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 7, 8, and 15-17 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art rejection fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, applicant argues that Hoffmann fails to disclose “a first cantilever beam, a second cantilever beam, wherein a first end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through the first cantilever beam, and a second end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through the second cantilever beam.” Applicant further asserts that the spring elements 3 as taught by Hoffmann do not satisfy the above said limitations. However, it is noted that a cantilever requires a structural element that is attached to a fixed structure on one end. In this case, the spring element 3, as taught by Hoffman satisfies that requirement, similar to the elected embodiment in applicant’s Figure 3. Further, on page 7, in the first full paragraph of Hoffmann, it is noted that the spring element 3 are connect to chip frame 4, which is considered to be applicant’s substrate. Therefore, Hoffmann discloses the cited limitations, as set forth below.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 20.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-14, and 18-20 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofmann et al. (DE 102017205047).
In regard to claim 1, Hofmann et al. discloses a light reflection assembly (i.e. using micromirror 2, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation), comprising (see e.g. Figure 11):
a first cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page 7, first full paragraph of translation),
a second cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page7, first full paragraph of translation),
a substrate 4 (denoted “chip frame”, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation), located on a magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation),
a reflection element 2 (denoted “micromirror” ”, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation) located in a hollow region in the middle of the substrate 4 (see e.g. Figure 11),
wherein a front side of the reflection element 2 is configured to reflect incident light (see e.g. Figure 10 and note that a micromirror inherently reflects incident light),
wherein a first end of the reflection element 2 is connected to the substrate 4 through the first cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page7, first full paragraph of translation), and a second end of the reflection element 2 is connected to the substrate 4 through the second cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page7, first full paragraph of translation),
the magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation) configured to drive the reflection element 2 to rotate (see e.g. page 8, fifth paragraph of translation), and
a support structure 7 (denoted “dome”), wherein (see e.g. page 7, second full paragraph of translation);
the support structure 7 is fastened to the magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation and Figure 11), wherein an end of the support structure 7 far away from the magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18) is in contact with a back side of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. Figure 11), and
wherein the support structure 7 does not move with rotation of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. Figure 11).
In regard to claim 2, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a contact region between the support structure 7 and the reflection element 2 is located at a center of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. Figure 11).
In regard to claim 10, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein the first cantilever beam 3 and the second cantilever beam 3 are located on different sides of the reflection element 2 disposed along a first axial direction (see e.g. Figure 11 and note that elements 3 are on either side of element 2).
In regard to claim 18, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the reflection element 2 is a planar reflector or a curved reflector (see e.g. Figure 11 and note it is planar).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (DE 102017205047) in view of Aoyagi et al. (US 2017/0351088 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a material of the support structure is gel, and wherein the support structure is bonded to the back side of the reflection element.
However, Aoyagi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 12):
wherein a material of the support structure 24 (i.e. 14+18+50) is gel (see e.g. paragraph [0109] where it is noted that element is 50 is a “soft adhesive” which may be considered a gel), and wherein the support structure 24 is bonded to the back side of the reflection element 30 (denoted “swing plate”)( see e.g. Figure 12 and paragraph [0109] and note that 24 is connected/bonded to 20 at least via 18 and 50).
Given the teachings of Aoyagi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein a material of the support structure is gel, and wherein the support structure is bonded to the back side of the reflection element.
Providing a gel or soft adhesive may prevent the swing plate/reflection element from detaching from the structure (see e.g. paragraph [0109] of Aoyagi et al.).
In regard to claim 11, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a third end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through a third cantilever beam, and wherein a fourth end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through a fourth cantilever beam.
However, Aoyagi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 14):
wherein a third end of the reflection element 20 (denoted “swing plate”, note reflective film 20a is on swing plate 20, see e.g. paragraph [0093]) is connected to the substrate 70 (denoted “intermediate support plate”) through a third cantilever beam 72 or 74 (denoted “elastic members”), and wherein a fourth end of the reflection element 20 is connected to the substrate 70 through a fourth cantilever beam 72 or 74.
Given the teachings of Aoyagi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein a third end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through a third cantilever beam, and wherein a fourth end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through a fourth cantilever beam.
Providing addition cantilever beams would allow motion in more than one axial direction, thus allowing two dimensional scanning.
In regard to claim 12, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11.
Hofmann et al. further disclose that a configuration that allows lateral displacement in two mutually perpendicular dimensions using additional cantilevers (springs) may be applied to their cited invention (see e.g. page 11, first full paragraph of English translation).
Hofmann et al. fails to disclose
wherein the third cantilever beam and the fourth cantilever beam are located on different sides of the reflection element disposed along a second axial direction, wherein the magnetic structure is further configured to drive the reflection element to rotate around the first axial direction, and wherein the first axial direction and the second axial direction are in a same plane and are perpendicular to each other.
However, Aoyagi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 14):
wherein the third cantilever beam 72 or 74 and the fourth cantilever beam 72 or 74 are located on different sides of the reflection element 20 disposed along a second axial direction, wherein the magnetic structure is further configured to drive the reflection element 20 to rotate around the first axial direction (see e.g. paragraph [0071] for magnetic structure), and wherein the first axial direction and the second axial direction are in a same plane and are perpendicular to each other (see e.g. Figure 14 and note elements 72 or 74 satisfy the limitation).
Given the teachings of Aoyagi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein the third cantilever beam and the fourth cantilever beam are located on different sides of the reflection element disposed along a second axial direction, wherein the magnetic structure is further configured to drive the reflection element to rotate around the first axial direction, and wherein the first axial direction and the second axial direction are in a same plane and are perpendicular to each other.
Providing addition cantilever beams would allow motion in more than one axial direction, thus allowing two dimensional scanning.
Claims 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (DE 102017205047).
In regard to claim 4, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a length of a contact region between the support structure and the reflection element meets a first preset condition, and wherein the first preset condition is B<0.1 *A, wherein B represents the length of the contact region, and A represents a rotation radius of the reflection element.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a length of a contact region between the support structure and the reflection element meets a first preset condition, and wherein the first preset condition is B<0.1 *A, wherein B represents the length of the contact region, and A represents a rotation radius of the reflection element, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein a length of a contact region between the support structure and the reflection element meets a first preset condition, and wherein the first preset condition is B<0.1 *A, wherein B represents the length of the contact region, and A represents a rotation radius of the reflection element.
By adjusting the length of the region that makes contact between the support structure and the reflection element, the amount of rotation of the reflection element may be controlled to within desired parameters.
In regard to claim 5, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above.
However, the cited embodiment of Hofmann et al. (i.e. Figure 11), fails to disclose
wherein the light reflection assembly further comprises: a height-limiting structure located on the substrate. and a protection structure located on the height-limiting structure, wherein the protection structure is configured to restrict a motion amplitude of the reflection element, so that the reflection element does not protrude from a plane in which the protection structure is located.
In another embodiment, Hofmann et al. further discloses wherein the light reflection assembly further comprises (see e.g. Figure 6):
a height-limiting structure 14 (denoted “spacer”) located on the substrate 4 (see e.g. page 8, second paragraph of English translation), and a protection structure 15 (denoted “stop”) located on the height-limiting structure 14 (see e.g. page 8, second paragraph of English translation), wherein the protection structure 15 is configured to restrict a motion amplitude of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. page 8, second paragraph of English translation), so that the reflection element 2 does not protrude from a plane in which the protection structure 15 is located (see e.g. Figure 6, where the prevention of that motion is illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein the light reflection assembly further comprises: a height-limiting structure located on the substrate. and a protection structure located on the height-limiting structure, wherein the protection structure is configured to restrict a motion amplitude of the reflection element, so that the reflection element does not protrude from a plane in which the protection structure is located.
Doing so would prevent unwanted motion of the reflective element past a certain angle as well as protect the internal components from dirt or moisture (see e.g. page 8, second paragraph of English translation of Hofmann et al.).
In regard to claim 6, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above.
The cited embodiment of Hoffmann et al. (i.e. Figure 11) fails to disclose
wherein the protection structure is a light-transmitting element.
In another embodiment, Hofmann et al. further discloses
wherein the protection structure 15 is a light-transmitting element (i.e. glass, see e.g. page 8, second paragraph of English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with
wherein the protection structure is a light-transmitting element.
Doing so would prevent unwanted motion of the reflective element past a certain angle as well as protect the internal components from dirt or moisture while maintaining transparency so that the device may reflect incident light (see e.g. page 8, second paragraph of English translation of Hofmann et al.).
In regard to claim 9, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a height of the height-limiting structure meets a second preset condition, and the second preset condition is H>R*tan0, wherein H represents the height of the height-limiting structure, R represents a maximum rotation radius of the reflection element, and 0 represents a maximum rotation angle of the reflection element.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a height of the height-limiting structure meets a second preset condition, and the second preset condition is H>R*tan0, wherein H represents the height of the height-limiting structure, R represents a maximum rotation radius of the reflection element, and 0 represents a maximum rotation angle of the reflection element, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein a height of the height-limiting structure meets a second preset condition, and the second preset condition is H>R*tan0, wherein H represents the height of the height-limiting structure, R represents a maximum rotation radius of the reflection element, and 0 represents a maximum rotation angle of the reflection element.
Selecting the height of the height-limiting structure prevents the reflection element from rotating past the desired parameters of the device.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (DE 102017205047) in view of Asada (US 2015/0241691 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above,
wherein a coil 17 is disposed on the back side of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of English translation).
Hofmann et al. fails to disclose
wherein the coil is electrically connected to pads on the substrate through conducting wires to form a loop, and wherein the conducting wires are configured to transmit a current, so that the coil generates an electromagnetic force and drives the reflection element to rotate.
However, Asada discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the coil C is electrically connected to pads E on the substrate through conducting wires (i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4) to form a loop (see e.g. paragraph [0060] and Figure 4), and wherein the conducting wires are configured to transmit a current (see e.g. paragraph [0034]), so that the coil generates an electromagnetic force and drives the reflection element 3a (denoted “deflecting mirror”) to rotate (see e.g. paragraph [0034]).
Given the teachings of Asada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein the coil is electrically connected to pads on the substrate through conducting wires to form a loop, and wherein the conducting wires are configured to transmit a current, so that the coil generates an electromagnetic force and drives the reflection element to rotate.
Providing the pad and wiring structure allows an external signal/power to be applied to the wiring.
In regard to claim 14, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13, but fails to disclose
wherein the conducting wires comprise:
a first conducting wire, and
a second conducting wire;
wherein the pads comprise a first pad and a second pad; one end of the first conducting wire is connected to the first pad, and the other end of the first conducting wire is arranged along the first cantilever beam and is connected to the coil; and
wherein one end of the second conducting wire is connected to the second pad, and the other end of the second conducting wire is arranged along the second cantilever beam connected to the coil.
However Asada discloses
wherein the conducting wires (i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4) comprise:
a first conducting wire (i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4), and
a second conducting wire(i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4);
wherein the pads E comprise a first pad E and a second pad E (see e.g. Figure 4 and note there are two pads);
one end of the first conducting wire (i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4) is connected to the first pad E, and the other end of the first conducting wire (i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4) is arranged along the first cantilever beam 4a (denoted “metal bar) and is connected to the coil C; and
wherein one end of the second conducting wire (i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4) is connected to the second pad E, and the other end of the second conducting wire(i.e. C is comprised of wires in Figure 4) is arranged along the second cantilever beam 4a (denoted “metal bar) connected to the coil C.
Given the teachings of Asada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with wherein the conducting wires comprise: a first conducting wire, and a second conducting wire; wherein the pads comprise a first pad and a second pad; one end of the first conducting wire is connected to the first pad, and the other end of the first conducting wire is arranged along the first cantilever beam and is connected to the coil; and wherein one end of the second conducting wire is connected to the second pad, and the other end of the second conducting wire is arranged along the second cantilever beam connected to the coil.
Providing the pad and wiring structure allows an external signal/power to be applied to the wiring.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (DE 102017205047) in view of Peeters et al. (US 6,650,463 B1).
In regard to claim 19, Hofmann et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Hofmann et al. fails to disclose
an optical switch, comprising: a first light reflection array, a first fiber collimator configured to guide an input optical signal to the first light reflection array, a second fiber collimator configured to output the optical signal, and a second light reflection array, wherein the first light reflection array comprises a plurality of light reflection assemblies according to claim 1, and the second light reflection array comprises a plurality of light reflection assemblies according to claim 1, wherein; the light reflection assembly on the first light reflection array is configured to reflect the optical signal to the light reflection assembly on the second light reflection array, and wherein the light reflection assembly on the second light reflection array is configured to reflect the optical signal to the second fiber collimator.
However, Peeters et al. discloses an optical switch, comprising (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 2, line 58-Column 3, line 32):
a first light reflection array 104, a first fiber collimator 108 configured to guide an input optical signal (i.e. via 101) to the first light reflection array 104, a second fiber collimator 112 configured to output the optical signal (i.e. via 101), and
the first light reflection array 104 comprises a plurality of light reflection assemblies 106,
a second light reflection array 105 comprises a plurality of light reflection assemblies 107, and
wherein; the light reflection assembly 106 on the first light reflection array 104 is configured to reflect the optical signal (i.e. via 101) to the light reflection assembly 107 on the second light reflection array 105, and
wherein the light reflection assembly 107 on the second light reflection array 105 is configured to reflect the optical signal (i.e. via 101) to the second fiber collimator 112.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize incorporation the light reflection assembly as taught by Hofmann et al. into the optical switch as a practical application of the reflection assembly.
Given the teachings of Peeters et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann et al. with an optical switch, comprising: a first light reflection array, a first fiber collimator configured to guide an input optical signal to the first light reflection array, a second fiber collimator configured to output the optical signal, and a second light reflection array, wherein the first light reflection array comprises a plurality of light reflection assemblies according to claim 1, and the second light reflection array comprises a plurality of light reflection assemblies according to claim 1, wherein; the light reflection assembly on the first light reflection array is configured to reflect the optical signal to the light reflection assembly on the second light reflection array, and wherein the light reflection assembly on the second light reflection array is configured to reflect the optical signal to the second fiber collimator.
Doing so would provide an optical switching device that has the ability to achieve large movements in the individual reflector assemblies (see e.g. page 1, second paragraph, continued on page 2 of English translation of Hofmann et al.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2019/0265461 A1) in view of Hofmann et al. (DE 102017205047) .
In regard to claim 20, Xie et al. discloses a photographing apparatus (i.e. camera, see e.g. title and abstract), comprising (see e.g. Figure 2a):
a light reflection assembly (i.e. comprising at least rotatable reflector 201) configured to reflect input light, comprising (see e.g. Figure 2a):
a lens assembly 202 (denoted “lens group”) configured to guide the input light (see e.g. Figures 2b,c),
an image sensor 204 configured to perform imaging based on the input light received from the image sensor 204 (see e.g. paragraph [0078]).
Xie et al. fails to disclose
a first cantilever beam, a second cantilever beam, a substrate located on a magnetic structure, a reflection element located in a hollow region in the middle of the substrate, wherein a front side of the reflection element is configured to reflect incident light, wherein a first end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through the first cantilever beam, and a second end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through the second cantilever beam, the magnetic structure configured to drive the reflection element to rotate, and a support structure, wherein the support structure is fastened to the magnetic structure, wherein an end of the support structure far away from the magnetic structure is in contact with a back side of the reflection element, and wherein the support structure does not move with rotation of the reflection element.
However, Hofmann et al. discloses
a first cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page 7, first full paragraph of translation),
a second cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page7, first full paragraph of translation),
a substrate 4 (denoted “chip frame”, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation), located on a magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation),
a reflection element 2 (denoted “micromirror”, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation) located in a hollow region in the middle of the substrate 4 (see e.g. Figure 11),
wherein a front side of the reflection element 2 is configured to reflect incident light (see e.g. Figure 10 and note that a micromirror inherently reflects incident light),
wherein a first end of the reflection element 2 is connected to the substrate 4 through the first cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page7, first full paragraph of translation), and a second end of the reflection element 2 is connected to the substrate 4 through the second cantilever beam 3 (denoted “spring element”, see e.g. page7, first full paragraph of translation),
the magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation) configured to drive the reflection element 2 to rotate (see e.g. page 8, fifth paragraph of translation), and
a support structure 7 (denoted “dome”), wherein (see e.g. page 7, second full paragraph of translation);
the support structure 7 is fastened to the magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18, see e.g. page 9, first paragraph of translation and Figure 11), wherein an end of the support structure 7 far away from the magnetic structure (i.e. including at least electromagnets 18) is in contact with a back side of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. Figure 11), and
wherein the support structure 7 does not move with rotation of the reflection element 2 (see e.g. Figure 11).
Given the teachings of Hofmann et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Xie et al. with a first cantilever beam, a second cantilever beam, a substrate located on a magnetic structure, a reflection element located in a hollow region in the middle of the substrate, wherein a front side of the reflection element is configured to reflect incident light, wherein a first end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through the first cantilever beam, and a second end of the reflection element is connected to the substrate through the second cantilever beam, the magnetic structure configured to drive the reflection element to rotate, and a support structure, wherein the support structure is fastened to the magnetic structure, wherein an end of the support structure far away from the magnetic structure is in contact with a back side of the reflection element, and wherein the support structure does not move with rotation of the reflection element.
Doing so would provide an photographing device that has the ability to achieve large movements in the individual reflector assemblies (see e.g. page 1, second paragraph, continued on page 2 of English translation of Hofmann et al.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871