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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed 1/26/2026. Claims 1-23 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the injected electron” lacks the corrected antecedent. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mortemousque’s tunnel-rate selective spin readout is not the same as the Applicant’s “ramped spin measurement” and when the readout is suppose to happen.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Applicant argues that Mortemousque discloses tunnel-rate selective spin readout, whereas the claimed readout of the present application is called the “ramped spin measurement” or “RSM” method. The examiner does not see the claim specifically requires a “ramped spin measurement” or rather a non-tunnel-rate selective spin readout. Not only the claim does not have “RSM” or “ramped spin measurement” language, but the claim also does not mention anything about “readout” as argued.
Second, the Applicant argues the ramped readout protocol provides a “ramped detuning during the readout step” and Mortemousque is focused on optimization of the control phase with very limited discussion around the readout phase (page 6 of the Argument). The current claim recites “measuring a spin state of the injected electron while applying a ramped detuning for a time period”, which means all the claim requires is spin state of the electron is measure while applying a ramped detuning, the claim does not require that the ramped detuning is during the readout step as argued by the Applicant.
Third, the Applicant argues that Mortemousque “only states that there is a voltage applied during the operation stage and does not disclose applying a voltage during readout, let alone using a voltage ramp during readout.” (pages 7-8 of the Argument). The Examiner again wants to point to the current claim language which is one sentence of “measuring a spin state of the injected electron while applying a ramped detuning for a time period” which does not require using voltage ramp during readout nor applying a voltage during readout as argued by the Applicant.
Last, the Applicant argues that the “readout” method disclosed in [0083]-[0085] of the Specification leads to numerous advantages and is totally not disclosed by Mortemousque. The Examiner again fails to see this argued “readout” method anywhere in the claim language.
The Examiner strongly recommend the Applicant amend the claims to included the argued subject matter so the claims is more directed to the argued points.
Therefore, Mortemousque discloses the claimed limitations.
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, 5-11, 13-17 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Coherent control of individual electron spins in a two dimensional array of quantum dots”, Mortemousque et al, 8/19/2018.
Referring to claim 1, Mortemousque discloses a method for measuring the spin of an electron in a quantum dot that is tunnel coupled to a reservoir, (page 2 of Mortemousque, “The electron loading and isolation sequence is overlaid on the TL QD charge stability diagram shown in Fig. 1b, and explained in the following: the interruption of the degeneracy lines of the 0-1 and 1-2 electrons at VTL = −0.47 V and VTL = −0.53 V, respectively, indicates that the tunnel barrier to the electron reservoir becomes thicker and thicker as VTL is more negative”) the method comprising: measuring a spin state of the injected electron while applying a ramped detuning for a time period. (page 3 of Mortemousque, “At relatively large tunnel coupling, a change in detuning first permits the creation of a singlet state with one electron in each dot. The lowest energy antiparallel spin state |↑↓i with one electron in each dot is prepared by decreasing the tunnel coupling with a microsecond ramp.” Also pages 3-4 of Mortemousque, “one and two-electron coherent displacement” and Fig. 3 and page 9 of Mortemousque. “b, Energy diagram of the relevant spin states for two electrons in the TL-L double dot as a function of the detuning between the two dots. When the two electrons are either in L or TL dot, the singlet state is the ground state respectively indicated as S(0,2) and S(2,0). The lowest energy state in the separated configuration is the triplet state T+, where the spins are aligned and which crosses the singlet branch in two detuning points. At zero detuning and low tunnel coupling, the singlet state and the triplet T0 with antiparallel spins mix together as a result of the different Zeeman energy in the two dots.”)
Referring to claim 2, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising emptying the quantum dot. (page 2 of Mortemousque, “respectively, indicates that the tunnel barrier to the electron reservoir becomes thicker and thicker as VTL is more negative. It is therefore possible, starting from a QD structure empty of electrons, to apply a voltage pulse on VL-TL and VTL to load either one (L1, black sequence) or two electrons (LS, orange sequence).”)
Referring to claim 5, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the spin state of the injected electron comprises monitoring a charge signal of the quantum dot using a charge sensor. ([0063] of the current Specification recites “In some cases, single-shot spin readout is performed by mapping the spin state of a qubit onto a charge state (i.e., spin-to-charge conversion), which can then be detected using a nearby charge sensor such as a single-electron transistor (SET), a single-lead quantum dot (SLQD) charge sensor, a quantum point contact (QPC), a tunnel junction, or a single lead sensor”, hence “charge sensor” can be “quantum point contact”. Here, page 5 of Mortemousque discloses “The charge configurations can be read out by four quantum point contacts” therefore discloses a read out of a charge sensor)
Referring to claim 6, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 5, wherein a blip in the charge signal of the quantum dot before a threshold time indicates a spin-up state of the injected electron. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, Assuming that the tunnel rate to the electron reservoir of a triplet state is much faster than for a spin singlet, counting the number of rising edges after the time threshold (purple dashed line) directly gives access to the probability of detecting singlet states.)
Referring to claim 7, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 5, wherein an increase in the charge signal of the quantum dot after a threshold time indicates a spin-down state of the injected electron. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, Assuming that the tunnel rate to the electron reservoir of a triplet state is much faster than for a spin singlet, counting the number of rising edges after the time threshold (purple dashed line) directly gives access to the probability of detecting singlet states, hence after the purple dashed line of time threshold, any dip indicate spin-down state of the electron)
Referring to claim 8, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a rate for the injected electron to tunnel out of the quantum dot and into the reservoir increases during the time period and a rate for an electron to tunnel from the reservoir to the quantum dot decreases during the time period. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, Assuming that the tunnel rate to the electron reservoir of a triplet state is much faster than for a spin singlet, counting the number of rising edges after the time threshold (purple dashed line) directly gives access to the probability of detecting singlet states, hence after the purple dashed line of time threshold, any dip indicate spin-down state of the electron where the spin-up is rate of increase and spin-down is rate of decrease.)
Referring to claim 9, Mortemousque discloses a method for initializing a spin qubit in a quantum dot that is tunnel coupled to a reservoir, (page 2 of Mortemousque, “The electron loading and isolation sequence is overlaid on the TL QD charge stability diagram shown in Fig. 1b, and explained in the following: the interruption of the degeneracy lines of the 0-1 and 1-2 electrons at VTL = −0.47 V and VTL = −0.53 V, respectively, indicates that the tunnel barrier to the electron reservoir becomes thicker and thicker as VTL is more negative”) the method comprising: injecting an electron in the quantum dot by applying a ramped detuning for a first time period. (page 3 of Mortemousque, “At relatively large tunnel coupling, a change in detuning first permits the creation of a singlet state with one electron in each dot. The lowest energy antiparallel spin state |↑↓i with one electron in each dot is prepared by decreasing the tunnel coupling with a microsecond ramp.” Also pages 3-4 of Mortemousque, “one and two-electron coherent displacement” and Fig. 3 and page 9 of Mortemousque. “b, Energy diagram of the relevant spin states for two electrons in the TL-L double dot as a function of the detuning between the two dots. When the two electrons are either in L or TL dot, the singlet state is the ground state respectively indicated as S(0,2) and S(2,0). The lowest energy state in the separated configuration is the triplet state T+, where the spins are aligned and which crosses the singlet branch in two detuning points. At zero detuning and low tunnel coupling, the singlet state and the triplet T0 with antiparallel spins mix together as a result of the different Zeeman energy in the two dots.”)
Referring to claim 10, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising emptying the quantum dot. (page 2 of Mortemousque, “respectively, indicates that the tunnel barrier to the electron reservoir becomes thicker and thicker as VTL is more negative. It is therefore possible, starting from a QD structure empty of electrons, to apply a voltage pulse on VL-TL and VTL to load either one (L1, black sequence) or two electrons (LS, orange sequence).”)
Referring to claim 11, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising measuring a spin state of the injected electron while applying a ramped detuning for a second time period. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, two electron spin state at the tunnel rate during a time period)
Referring to claim 13, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 11, wherein measuring the spin state of the injected electron comprises monitoring a charge signal of the quantum dot using a charge sensor. ([0063] of the current Specification recites “In some cases, single-shot spin readout is performed by mapping the spin state of a qubit onto a charge state (i.e., spin-to-charge conversion), which can then be detected using a nearby charge sensor such as a single-electron transistor (SET), a single-lead quantum dot (SLQD) charge sensor, a quantum point contact (QPC), a tunnel junction, or a single lead sensor”, hence “charge sensor” can be “quantum point contact”. Here, page 5 of Mortemousque discloses “The charge configurations can be read out by four quantum point contacts” therefore discloses a read out of a charge sensor)
Referring to claim 14, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a spin state of the injected electron depends on a rate of the ramped detuning. (page 3 of Mortemousque, “At relatively large tunnel coupling, a change in detuning first permits the creation of a singlet state with one electron in each dot. The lowest energy antiparallel spin state |↑↓i with one electron in each dot is prepared by decreasing the tunnel coupling with a microsecond ramp.” Also pages 3-4 of Mortemousque, “one and two-electron coherent displacement” and Fig. 3 and page 9 of Mortemousque. “b, Energy diagram of the relevant spin states for two electrons in the TL-L double dot as a function of the detuning between the two dots. When the two electrons are either in L or TL dot, the singlet state is the ground state respectively indicated as S(0,2) and S(2,0). The lowest energy state in the separated configuration is the triplet state T+, where the spins are aligned and which crosses the singlet branch in two detuning points. At zero detuning and low tunnel coupling, the singlet state and the triplet T0 with antiparallel spins mix together as a result of the different Zeeman energy in the two dots.”)
Referring to claim 15, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the electron has a spin-down state in response to a slow rate of the ramped detuning. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, Assuming that the tunnel rate to the electron reservoir of a triplet state is much faster than for a spin singlet, counting the number of rising edges after the time threshold (purple dashed line) directly gives access to the probability of detecting singlet states, hence after the purple dashed line of time threshold, any dip indicate spin-down state of the electron where the spin-up is rate of increase and spin-down is rate of decrease.)
Referring to claim 16, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising the step of selecting the first time period to control the relative population of the two spin states. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, Assuming that the tunnel rate to the electron reservoir of a triplet state is much faster than for a spin singlet, counting the number of rising edges after the time threshold (purple dashed line) directly gives access to the probability of detecting singlet states, hence after the purple dashed line of time threshold, any dip indicate spin-down state of the electron where the spin-up is rate of increase and spin-down is rate of decrease.)
Referring to claim 17, Mortemousque discloses a method for measuring the spin of an electron in a first quantum dot that is tunnel coupled to a second quantum dot, the method comprising: measuring a quantum state of the first and second quantum dots while applying a ramped detuning for a time period. (see citations of claim 1)
Referring to claim 20, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 17, wherein measuring the quantum state of the first and second quantum dots comprises monitoring a charge difference between the first and second quantum dots using a charge sensor. ([0063] of the current Specification recites “In some cases, single-shot spin readout is performed by mapping the spin state of a qubit onto a charge state (i.e., spin-to-charge conversion), which can then be detected using a nearby charge sensor such as a single-electron transistor (SET), a single-lead quantum dot (SLQD) charge sensor, a quantum point contact (QPC), a tunnel junction, or a single lead sensor”, hence “charge sensor” can be “quantum point contact”. Here, page 5 of Mortemousque discloses “The charge configurations can be read out by four quantum point contacts” therefore discloses a read out of a charge sensor)
Referring to claim 21, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 20, wherein a step in the charge difference between the quantum dots before a threshold time indicates a singlet quantum state. (Fig. 2 and page 14 of Mortemousque)
Referring to claim 22, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 20, wherein an increase in the charge difference between the quantum dots after a threshold time indicates a triplet zero quantum state. (Fig. 2 and page 14 of Mortemousque)
Referring to claim 23, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 17. wherein a rate for the injected electron to tunnel out of the second quantum dot and into the first quantum dot increases during the time period. (as shown in Fig. 2 and on page 14 of Mortemousque, two electron spin state at the tunnel rate during a time period)
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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Coherent control of individual electron spins in a two dimensional array of quantum dots”, Mortemousque et al, 8/19/2018 in view of “Integrated silicon qubit platform with single-spin addressability, exchange control and robust single-shot singlet-triplet readout”, Fogarty et al, 12/5/2017.
Referring to claim 3, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 1. Mortemousque does not specifically disclose further comprising injecting an electron in the quantum dot by applying a constant voltage pulse for a first time period.
However, Fogarty discloses injecting an electron in the quantum dot by applying a constant voltage pulse for a first time period (page 5 of Fogarty, “By keeping ν constant throughout the experiment the Fourier transform of the interference pattern (Fig. 2f - left) directly extracts the energy separation |ESH (ε) − ET− (ε)| as a function of detuning”)
Mortemousque and Fogarty are analogous art because both references concern charge electron and measuring the spin state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mortemousque’s electron spinning measurements with charging electron with a constant charge as taught by Fogarty. The motivation for doing so would have been to test rate of electron spinning to see what the optimal rate is.
Referring to claim 18, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising injecting an electron in the second quantum dot to set the state of the quantum dots to a singlet state such that the first quantum dot includes zero unpaired electrons (fig. 2 and page 14 of Mortemousque, singlet state such that quantum dot includes zero unpaired electrons (the definition of Singlet state means all electrons are paired therefore with singlet state, there are zero unpaired electrons by default). Mortemousque does not specifically disclose the second quantum dot includes two electrons by applying a constant voltage pulse for a first time period.
However, Fogarty discloses the second quantum dot includes two electrons by applying a constant voltage pulse for a first time period (page 5 of Fogarty, “By keeping ν constant throughout the experiment the Fourier transform of the interference pattern (Fig. 2f - left) directly extracts the energy separation |ESH (ε) − ET− (ε)| as a function of detuning”)
Mortemousque and Fogarty are analogous art because both references concern charge electron and measuring the spin state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mortemousque’s electron spinning measurements with charging electron with a constant charge as taught by Fogarty. The motivation for doing so would have been to test rate of electron spinning to see what the optimal rate is.
Claims 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Coherent control of individual electron spins in a two dimensional array of quantum dots”, Mortemousque et al, 8/19/2018 in view of Morello et al (AU 2013302299 A1).
Referring to claim 4, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 1. Mortemousque does not specifically disclose wherein applying the ramped detuning comprises continuously ramping electrochemical potentials of the spin states of the injected electron from below Fermi energy of the reservoir to above the Fermi energy of the reservoir.
However, Morello discloses wherein applying the ramped detuning comprises continuously ramping electrochemical potentials of the spin states of the injected electron from below Fermi energy of the reservoir to above the Fermi energy of the reservoir. (page 13 of Morello, “Start with both donors ionized, i.e. in the D' state 411 (Fig. 4), and lower the 5 energy of the left donor 301 to the readout level, where the electrochemical potential of the electron spin-up states IT) 405, 406 is higher than the Fermi energy 506 of the electron reservoir 505, and the electrochemical potential of the electron spin-down states 11) 403, 404 is lower. Here a 11) electron is loaded onto the left donor 301. 10 (b) The electrochemical potential of the left donor 301 is lowered such that all spin states are below the Fermi energy 506. This is a safe position to apply a microwave excitation to the donor-bound electron, since the electron cannot escape. Depending on the nuclear spin state, the electron will have one of two possible ESR frequencies 407, 408. In the example sketched here we assume 15 that the nuclear spin is Il), i.e. the electro-nuclear state I It) 403 is loaded on the left donor 301. We assume here that only one ESR frequency is probed, e.g. 407 in this case”)
Mortemousque and Morello are analogous art because both references concern charge electron and measuring the spin state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mortemousque’s electron spinning measurements with charging electron with evaluating Fermi energy level based on ramping of spin state of electrons as taught by Morello. The motivation for doing so would have been to test rate of electron spinning to see what the optimal rate is.
Referring to claim 12, Mortemousque discloses the method of claim 9. Mortemousque does not specifically disclose wherein applying the ramped detuning for the first time period comprises continuously ramping electrochemical potentials of the spin states of the injected electron from above Fermi energy of the reservoir to below the Fermi energy of the reservoir.
However, Morello discloses wherein applying the ramped detuning for the first time period comprises continuously ramping electrochemical potentials of the spin states of the injected electron from above Fermi energy of the reservoir to below the Fermi energy of the reservoir. (page 13 of Morello, “Start with both donors ionized, i.e. in the D' state 411 (Fig. 4), and lower the 5 energy of the left donor 301 to the readout level, where the electrochemical potential of the electron spin-up states IT) 405, 406 is higher than the Fermi energy 506 of the electron reservoir 505, and the electrochemical potential of the electron spin-down states 11) 403, 404 is lower. Here a 11) electron is loaded onto the left donor 301. 10 (b) The electrochemical potential of the left donor 301 is lowered such that all spin states are below the Fermi energy 506. This is a safe position to apply a microwave excitation to the donor-bound electron, since the electron cannot escape. Depending on the nuclear spin state, the electron will have one of two possible ESR frequencies 407, 408. In the example sketched here we assume 15 that the nuclear spin is Il), i.e. the electro-nuclear state I It) 403 is loaded on the left donor 301. We assume here that only one ESR frequency is probed, e.g. 407 in this case”)
Mortemousque and Morello are analogous art because both references concern charge electron and measuring the spin state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mortemousque’s electron spinning measurements with charging electron with evaluating Fermi energy level based on ramping of spin state of electrons as taught by Morello. The motivation for doing so would have been to test rate of electron spinning to see what the optimal rate is.
Referring to claim 19, Mortemousque discloses the method claim 17. Mortemousque does not specifically disclose wherein applying the ramped detuning comprises continuously ramping electrochemical potentials of the spin states of the injected electron from below Fermi energy to above the Fermi energy.
However, Morello discloses wherein applying the ramped detuning comprises continuously ramping electrochemical potentials of the spin states of the injected electron from below Fermi energy to above the Fermi energy. (page 13 of Morello, “Start with both donors ionized, i.e. in the D' state 411 (Fig. 4), and lower the 5 energy of the left donor 301 to the readout level, where the electrochemical potential of the electron spin-up states IT) 405, 406 is higher than the Fermi energy 506 of the electron reservoir 505, and the electrochemical potential of the electron spin-down states 11) 403, 404 is lower. Here a 11) electron is loaded onto the left donor 301. 10 (b) The electrochemical potential of the left donor 301 is lowered such that all spin states are below the Fermi energy 506. This is a safe position to apply a microwave excitation to the donor-bound electron, since the electron cannot escape. Depending on the nuclear spin state, the electron will have one of two possible ESR frequencies 407, 408. In the example sketched here we assume 15 that the nuclear spin is Il), i.e. the electro-nuclear state I It) 403 is loaded on the left donor 301. We assume here that only one ESR frequency is probed, e.g. 407 in this case”)
Mortemousque and Morello are analogous art because both references concern charge electron and measuring the spin state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mortemousque’s electron spinning measurements with charging electron with evaluating Fermi energy level based on ramping of spin state of electrons as taught by Morello. The motivation for doing so would have been to test rate of electron spinning to see what the optimal rate is.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
“Optically Loaded Semiconductor Quantum Memory Register”, Kim et al, 2016: analyze an optically loaded quantum memory that exploits capacitive coupling between self-assembled quantum-dot molecules and electrically gated quantum-dot molecules. The self-assembled dots are used for spin-photon entanglement, which is transferred to the gated dots for long-term storage or processing via a teleportation process heralded by single-photon detection. We illustrate a device architecture enabling this interaction and outline both its operation and fabrication. We provide self consistent Poisson-Schrödinger simulations to establish the design viability, to refine the design, and to estimate the physical coupling parameters and their sensitivities to dot placement. The device we propose generates heralded copies of an entangled state between a photonic qubit and a solid-state qubit with a rapid reset time upon failure. The resulting fast rate of entanglement generation is of high utility for heralded quantum networking scenarios involving lossy optical channels.
“Spin state tomography of optically injected electrons in a semiconductor”, Kosaka et al, 2009: Spin is a fundamental property of electrons, with an important role in information storage1–4. For spin-based quantum information technology, preparation and read-out of the electron spin state are essential functions5–13. Coherence of the spin state is a manifestation of its quantum nature, so both the preparation and read-out should be spin-coherent. However, the traditional spin measurement technique based on Kerr rotation, which measures spin population using the rotation of the reflected light polarization that is due to the magneto-optical Kerr effect, requires an extra step of spin manipulation or precession to infer the spin coherence14–20. Here we describe a technique that generalizes the traditional Kerr rotation approach to enable us to measure the electron spin coherence directly without needing to manipulate the spin dynamics, which allows for a spin projection measurement on an arbitrary set of basis states. Because this technique enables spin state tomography, we call it tomographic Kerr rotation. We demonstrate that the polarization coherence of light is transferred to the spin coherence of electrons, and confirm this by applying the tomographic Kerr rotation method to semiconductor quantum wells with processing and non-processing electrons. Spin state transfer and tomography offers a tool for performing basis-independent preparation and read-out of a spin quantum state in a solid.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
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 HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights