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
In response to an Office action mailed on 10/02/2025 ("10-02-25 OA"), the Applicant substantively amended claims 1-6 and 8-20 on 02/02/2026 ("02-02-26 Response").
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant submitted two information disclosure statements on 11/26/2025 ("11-26-25 IDS") and 05/14/2026 ("05-14-26 IDS") after the 10-02-25 OA. Since the Applicant has met the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the 11-26-25 IDS and 05-14-26 IDS are in compliance and are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the independent claims 1 and 8 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-13 as being anticipated by Yang set forth starting on page 2 under line item number 1 of the 10-02-25 OA and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 7 and 14 as being unpatentable over Yang and further in view of Mukherjee set forth starting on page 8 under line item number 2 of the 10-02-25 OA.
Applicant's amendments to the independent claim 15 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 15-20 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Kshirsagar set forth starting on page 8 under line item number 3 of the 10-02-25 OA.
Applicant's amendments to the independent claims 1 and 8 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 12 and 13 as being anticipated by Yoshioka set forth starting on page 11 under line item number 4 of the 10-02-25 OA and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 7 and 14 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka and further in view of Mukherjee set forth staring on page 16 under line item number 5 of the 10-02-25 OA.
Substantive-amendments to the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 required further consideration and updated search. New grounds of rejection are provided below.
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 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Section 2173.02.I. of the MPEP provides the following guidance on how pre-issuance claims under examination are construed differently than patented claims:
Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. While "absolute precision is unattainable" in patented claims, the definiteness requirement "mandates clarity." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 527 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129, 110 USPQ2d 1688, 1693 (2014). A court will not find a patented claim indefinite unless the claim interpreted in light of the specification and the prosecution history fails to "inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty." Id. at 1689.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim. Such claim construction during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court's determination. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1323-24, 110 USPQ2d at 1796-97 (Plager, J., concurring). However, applicant has the ability to amend the claims during prosecution to ensure that the meaning of the language is clear and definite prior to issuance or provide a persuasive explanation (with evidence as necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)( claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution "to facilitate sharpening and clarifying the claims at the application stage"); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, claim 2 is indefinite, because it is unclear what is meant by “arrangement a ferrite core.”
Claims 3-7 are indefinite, because they depend from the indefinite claim 2.
Claim 9 is indefinite, because “the arrangement” lacks antecedent basis. It has been assumed to refer to “an inductor arrangement.”
Claims 9-14 are indefinite, because they depend from the indefinite claim 9.
Claim 16 is indefinite, because “the arrangement” lacks antecedent basis. It has been assumed to refer to “an inductor arrangement.”
Claims 17-20 are indefinite, because they depend from the indefinite claim 16.
A. Prior-art rejections based on Zhu
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2022/0293326 A1 to Zhu et al. ("Zhu").
Figs. 2, 5 and 8 of Zhu have been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image2.png
281
307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
434
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
292
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhu teaches an apparatus (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 2. See also Fig. 8) comprising:
a package substrate 200 (para [0031] - “The multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 200 is similar in many respects to the multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 100, except that the multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 200 includes the core slots 203 and 206.”) comprising an inductor arrangement including two inductors L1, L2 that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically negatively coupled (para [0047] - “However, when negative coupled inductors are used, steady state inductance Lss can be greater than transient inductance Ltr.”), wherein the inductor arrangement is configured to:
supply load current to a load (see Vout connected to a load in Fig. 5).
A limitation of “exhibit a first effective inductance during a transient load condition that is less than a second effective inductance exhibited by the inductor arrangement during a steady-state load condition” does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the apparatus taught by Zhu, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of a magnetically, negatively-coupled inductor arrangement. Since Zhu teaches the inductor arrangement including the two inductors L1, L2 that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically negatively coupled, the inductor arrangement of Zhu is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristics. See Fig. 5 that shows Lss>Ltr.).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu teaches an integrated circuit Processors (see Fig. 8) coupled to receive load current supplied by the inductor arrangement Inductor (see Fig. 8), wherein the load current is derived form a voltage regular PMIC (see Fig. 8).
Regarding independent claim 8, Zhu teaches a method, comprising:
supping a load current to a load (see Vout connected to a load in Fig. 5) using an inductor arrangement (para [0031] - “The multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 200 is similar in many respects to the multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 100, except that the multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 200 includes the core slots 203 and 206.”) including two inductors L1, L2 that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically negatively coupled (para [0047] - “However, when negative coupled inductors are used, steady state inductance Lss can be greater than transient inductance Ltr.”).
A limitation of “exhibiting a first effective inductance of the inductor arrangement during a transient load condition that is less than a second effective inductance exhibited by the inductor arrangement during a steady-state load condition” has been construed as not an actual method step but an operational characteristics of a magnetically, negatively-coupled inductor arrangement. Since Zhu teaches the inductor arrangement including the two inductors L1, L2 that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically negatively coupled, the inductor arrangement of Zhu is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristics. See Fig. 5 that shows Lss>Ltr.).
Regarding claim 11, the entirety of the wherein clause of claim 11 does not distinguish the claimed method over the method taught by Zhu, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of a magnetically, negatively-coupled inductor arrangement. Since Zhu teaches all of the structural limitations of the magnetically, negatively-coupled inductor arrangement, the method of Zhu is reasonably capable of having the claimed operational characteristic.
Regarding independent claim 15, Zhu teaches a computing system 800 (para [0056] - “FIG. 8 shows a device 800 that uses a multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure. The device 800 can correspond to portable electronic devices such as laptops, desktops, smartphones, as well as other consumer, industrial, and other electronic devices.”; see also Figs. 2 and 5) comprising:
an electrical load (see Vout connected to a load in Fig. 5); and
an inductor arrangement (para [0031] - “The multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 200 is similar in many respects to the multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 100, except that the multi-phase integrated coupled inductor structure 200 includes the core slots 203 and 206.”) coupled to a supply current to the electrical load, wherein the inductor arrangement:
includes a plurality of magnetically negatively coupled inductors L1, L2 (para [0047] - “However, when negative coupled inductors are used, steady state inductance Lss can be greater than transient inductance Ltr.”) electrically coupled to share load current (see Fig. 5); and
is configured to exhibit a reduced effective inductance during a transient load condition relative to a steady-state load condition (A limitation of “is configured to exhibit a reduced effective inductance during a transient load condition relative to a steady-state load condition” does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the apparatus taught by Zhu, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of a magnetically, negatively-coupled inductor arrangement. Since Zhu teaches the inductor arrangement including the two inductors L1, L2 that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically negatively coupled, the inductor arrangement of Zhu is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristics. See Fig. 5 that shows Lss>Ltr.).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu teaches the system that further comprises a voltage regulator 812 (para [0056] - “a power management integrated circuit 812”) configured to supply current to the electrical load through the inductor arrangement.
Regarding claim 18, the entirety of the wherein clause of claim 18 does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the apparatus taught by Zhu, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of the claimed apparatus. Since Zhu teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, the apparatus taught by Zhu is reasonably capable of having the claimed operational characteristic.
B. Prior-art rejections based on the combination of ‘367 Yoshioka and ‘965 Yoshioka
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘367 Yoshioka (previously-cited Pub. No. US 2021/0043367 A1 to Yoshioka et al. hereinafter ‘367 Yoshioka) in view of Pub. No. US 2018/0075965 A1 to Yoshioka et al. (" ‘965 Yoshioka").
Fig. 4 of ‘367 Yoshioka has been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image5.png
396
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, ‘367 Yoshioka teaches an apparatus comprising:
a package substrate comprising an inductor arrangement 1A (para [0126] - “an inductor component 1A”) including two inductors 21A, 22A (para [0129] - “This means that, when the inner circumference edges of the first and the second spiral wires 21A and 22A serve as the input side of a pulse signal, the outer circumference edges thereof serve as the output side of the pulse signal, or the outer circumference edges serve as the input side of the pulse signal, and the inner circumference edges thereof serve as the output side of the pulse signal, the first spiral wire 21A and the second spiral wire 22A are negatively coupled with each other.”; para [0127] - “Furthermore, an inductor array can be formed by the plurality of spiral wires 21A and 22A arranged in the same plane.”; Fig. 6B shows the spiral wires 21 that are embedded in the main body 11. para [0070] - “As illustrated in FIG. 1C, the main body 11 includes magnetic powder 13 and a resin piece 14 containing the magnetic powder 13.”) that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically negatively coupled (see Fig. 4), wherein the inductor arrangement 1A is configured to:
supply an output (para [0139] - “By contrast, for example, when one edge side of one of the first spiral wire 21B and the second spiral wire 22B serves as the input and its other edge side serves as an output, and one edge side of the other spiral wire serves as the output…”).
‘367 Yoshioka does not specifically disclose “supply load current to a load.”
However, ‘965 Yoshioka teaches an output side of the inductor component 1 that is connected to a load 9b (para [0245]; see Fig. 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the load taught by ‘965 Yoshioka to the apparatus taught by ‘367 Yoshioka so as to use the inductor component in “an LC ripple filter of a DC-DC converter circuit” (‘965 Yoshioka, para [0245]).
A limitation of “exhibit a first effective inductance during a transient load condition that is less than a second effective inductance exhibited by the inductor arrangement during a steady-state load condition” is directed to an operational characteristic of the claimed apparatus, so it may not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over an apparatus taught by the combination of ‘367 Yoshioka and ‘965 Yoshioka beyond the structural limitations that have already been recited in the claim. The apparatus taught by the combination above is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristics as recited in the limitation above, because the combination above teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.).
Regarding claim 2, ‘367 Yoshioka of the combination above further teaches the arrangement a ferrite core 11 (para [0070] - “As illustrated in FIG. 1C, the main body 11 includes magnetic powder 13 and a resin piece 14 containing the magnetic powder 13.”; para [0085] - “Examples of the magnetic powder 13 include a FeSi-based alloy such as FeSiCr, a FeCo-based alloy, a Fe-based alloy such as NiFe, an amorphous alloy of these, or a ferrite such as a NiZn-based or MnZn-based ferrite. One or a combination of these types of magnetic powder may be used.”).
Regarding claim 4, the entirety of the wherein clause of claim 4 does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the apparatus taught by the combination above, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of the claimed apparatus. Since the combination above teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, the apparatus taught by the combination above is reasonably capable of having the claimed operational characteristic.
Regarding claim 5, ‘367 Yoshioka of the combination above further teaches each of the two inductors 21A, 22A that comprises at least two windings of a metal coil around the ferrite core 11.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshioka teaches a metal coil of at least one of the two inductors 21A, 22A is oriented in a diagonal direction relative to the ferrite core 11.
Regarding independent claim 8, ‘367 Yoshioka teaches a method, comprising:
providing an inductor arrangement (para [0126] - “an inductor component 1A”) including two inductors 21A, 22A (para [0129] - “This means that, when the inner circumference edges of the first and the second spiral wires 21A and 22A serve as the input side of a pulse signal, the outer circumference edges thereof serve as the output side of the pulse signal, or the outer circumference edges serve as the input side of the pulse signal, and the inner circumference edges thereof serve as the output side of the pulse signal, the first spiral wire 21A and the second spiral wire 22A are negatively coupled with each other.”; para [0127] - “Furthermore, an inductor array can be formed by the plurality of spiral wires 21A and 22A arranged in the same plane.”; Fig. 6B shows the spiral wires 21 that are embedded in the main body 11. para [0070] - “As illustrated in FIG. 1C, the main body 11 includes magnetic powder 13 and a resin piece 14 containing the magnetic powder 13.”) that are electrically connected in parallel and magnetically coupled (see Fig. 4); and
supplying an output (para [0139] - “By contrast, for example, when one edge side of one of the first spiral wire 21B and the second spiral wire 22B serves as the input and its other edge side serves as an output, and one edge side of the other spiral wire serves as the output…”).
‘367 Yoshioka does not specifically disclose “supplying load current to a load using an inductor arrangement.”
However, ‘965 Yoshioka teaches supplying a load current to a load 9b using an inductor arrangement 1 (para [0245]; see Fig. 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of supplying a load current to a load taught by ‘965 Yoshioka to the method of providing the inductor arrangement taught by ‘367 Yoshioka so as to use the inductor component in “an LC ripple filter of a DC-DC converter circuit” (‘965 Yoshioka, para [0245]).
A limitation of “exhibiting a first effective inductance of the inductor arrangement during a transient load condition that is less than a second effective inductance exhibited by the inductor arrangement during a steady-state load condition” has been construed as not an actual method step but an operational characteristic of a magnetically, negatively-coupled inductor arrangement. Since the combination above teaches all of the structural limitations of the inductor arrangement connected to a load, the combination above is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristics as recited in the limitation above.
Regarding claim 9, ‘367 Yoshioka teaches the arrangement that comprises a ferrite core 11 (para [0070] - “As illustrated in FIG. 1C, the main body 11 includes magnetic powder 13 and a resin piece 14 containing the magnetic powder 13.”; para [0085] - “Examples of the magnetic powder 13 include a FeSi-based alloy such as FeSiCr, a FeCo-based alloy, a Fe-based alloy such as NiFe, an amorphous alloy of these, or a ferrite such as a NiZn-based or MnZn-based ferrite. One or a combination of these types of magnetic powder may be used.”).
Regarding claim 10, ‘965 Yoshioka of the combination above teaches supplying load current to the load 9b that comprises supplying load current derived from a voltage regulator DRIVER (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, the entirety of the wherein clause of claim 11 does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the apparatus taught by the combination above, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of the claimed apparatus. Since the combination above teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, the apparatus taught by the combination above is reasonably capable of having the claimed operational characteristic.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka teaches each of the two inductors 21A, 22A that comprises at least two windings 21 of a metal coil disposed around the ferrite core 11 (para [0090] - “a spiral wire 21 is an inductor wire 21”; Fig. 3L shows two windings of 21.).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshioka teaches a metal coil 21 of at least one of the two inductors 21A, 22A that is oriented in a diagonal direction relative to the ferrite core 11 (see Fig. 4; see also Fig. 3L).
Regarding independent claim 15, ‘367 Yoshioka teaches a computer system (para [0068] - “For example, this inductor component 1 is mounted on an electronic device such as a personal computer…”), comprising:
an inductor arrangement 1A (para [0126] - “an inductor component 1A”) including two inductors 21A, 22A (para [0129] - “This means that, when the inner circumference edges of the first and the second spiral wires 21A and 22A serve as the input side of a pulse signal, the outer circumference edges thereof serve as the output side of the pulse signal, or the outer circumference edges serve as the input side of the pulse signal, and the inner circumference edges thereof serve as the output side of the pulse signal, the first spiral wire 21A and the second spiral wire 22A are negatively coupled with each other.”; para [0127] - “Furthermore, an inductor array can be formed by the plurality of spiral wires 21A and 22A arranged in the same plane.”; Fig. 6B shows the spiral wires 21 that are embedded in the main body 11. para [0070] - “As illustrated in FIG. 1C, the main body 11 includes magnetic powder 13 and a resin piece 14 containing the magnetic powder 13.”) that that includes a plurality of magnetically negatively coupled inductors 21A, 22A (see Fig. 4), wherein the inductor arrangement 1A is configured to:
supply an output (para [0139] - “By contrast, for example, when one edge side of one of the first spiral wire 21B and the second spiral wire 22B serves as the input and its other edge side serves as an output, and one edge side of the other spiral wire serves as the output…”).
‘367 Yoshioka does not specifically disclose “an electrical load” or “an inductor arrangement coupled to supply current to the electrical load.”
However, ‘965 Yoshioka teaches an output side of the inductor component 1 that is connected to a load 9b (para [0245]; see Fig. 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the load taught by ‘965 Yoshioka to the apparatus taught by ‘367 Yoshioka so as to use the inductor component in “an LC ripple filter of a DC-DC converter circuit” (‘965 Yoshioka, para [0245]).
A limitation of “is configured to exhibit a reduced effective inductance during a transient load condition relative to a steady-state load condition” is directed to an operational characteristic of the inductor arrangement connected to the load, so it may not structurally distinguish the claimed computer system over the computer system taught by the combination of ‘367 Yoshioka and ‘965 Yoshioka beyond the structural limitations that have already been recited in the claim. The computer system taught by the combination above is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristics as recited in the limitation above, because the combination above teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, ‘367 Yoshioka of the combination above teaches the arrangement that comprises a ferrite core 11 (para [0070] - “As illustrated in FIG. 1C, the main body 11 includes magnetic powder 13 and a resin piece 14 containing the magnetic powder 13.”; para [0085] - “Examples of the magnetic powder 13 include a FeSi-based alloy such as FeSiCr, a FeCo-based alloy, a Fe-based alloy such as NiFe, an amorphous alloy of these, or a ferrite such as a NiZn-based or MnZn-based ferrite. One or a combination of these types of magnetic powder may be used.”).
Regarding claim 17, ‘965 Yoshioka of the combination above teaches a voltage regulator DRIVER (see Fig. 11) configured to supply current to the electrical load 9b through the inductor arrangement.
Regarding claim 18, the entirety of the wherein clause of claim 18 does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the apparatus taught by the combination above, because it is directed to an operational characteristic of the claimed apparatus. Since the combination above teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, the apparatus taught by the combination above is reasonably capable of having the claimed operational characteristic.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshioka teaches each of the magnetically negatively coupled inductors 21A, 22A comprises at least two windings 21 of a metal coil around the ferrite core 11 (para [0090] - “a spiral wire 21 is an inductor wire 21”; Fig. 3L shows two windings of 21.).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshioka teaches a metal coil 21 of at least one of the two magnetically negatively coupled inductors 21A, 22A that is oriented in a diagonal direction relative to the ferrite core 11 (see Fig. 4; see also Fig. 3L).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of ‘367 Yoshioka and ‘965 Yoshioka and further in view of Mukherjee (previously-cited Pub. No. 2022/0399153 A1 to Mukherjee et al.).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of ‘367 Yoshioka and ‘965 Yoshioka does not specify that the inductor arrangement is disposed within a package substrate comprising glass-reinforced epoxy laminate material.
However, Mukherjee teaches that “Planar transformer 201 can comprise both primary windings and secondary windings (not pictured) wherein each winding is located on different layers of a printed circuit board (PCB). The primary and secondary windings of planar transformer 201 can be interleaved through various vias located throughout the PCB. Dielectric layers can be included between each primary and secondary winding to maintain isolation between the layers…In some instances, a layer of FR4 can separate each winding layer and a polyimide dielectric layer for additional isolation.” (para [0034]; FR4 is a glass-reinforced epoxy laminate material.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus taught by the combination of ‘367 Yoshioka and ‘965 Yoshioka by using a layer of FR4 of Mukherjee to separate each winding layer of ‘367 Yoshioka so as to provide additional isolation for the apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano, can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 06 June 2026
Prosecution Insights