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 January 7, 2026. Claims 8-18 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-7 and 19-26 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-9 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that Wolk et al. does not disclose or make obvious the newly amended limitation, “a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure”. Namely, applicant argues that the method as disclosed by the Wolk et al. reference is not capable of making applicant’s structure and thus it would not be obvious to optimize the angle or change the shape, as set forth in the previous rejection. The method of Wolk et al. uses nanoimprinting lithography and thus applicant argues that applicant’s particular claimed shape is not able to be achieved by such a method. First, the examiner notes that the claim is drawn to a device and does not depend on the method of manufacture. Further, it is noted that the limitation “truncated top of . . .” is not in reference to another structure or limitation, so either side may be considered to be the top.
Applicant further argues that Wolk et al. fails to disclose “said metasurface optic introducing a spatially varying phase shift across incident short- wave infrared (SWIR) light waves” because the disclosure of Wolk et al. is largely drawn to visible wavelengths and only makes one mention of near infrared. Applicant further asserts that the materials of Wolk et al. would not be suitable for short wave infrared applications. First, it is noted that the Wolk et al. discloses that the phase shift may occur in a near IR range, which satisfies applicant’s claim language. Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to apply the device to different wavelength ranges would require adjustments to the device including to the materials thereof. Finally, it is noted that claim 1 is not drawn to the material of the device.
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 19 and 23.
Therefore claims 1-7 and 19-26 are rejected as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities. In line 10, “1nmm” should be replaced with “1nm” in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4-7, 19, 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolk et al. (US 2022/0404525 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Wolk et al. discloses a metasurface optic 100 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]), comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
one or more unit cells (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and note there is at least one unit cell), each unit cell comprising a specific arrangement of subwavelength (see e.g. paragraph [0025]) nanostructures 103 (see e.g. paragraphs [0052]-[0053]);
said subwavelength nanostructures being truncated cone nanostructures (see e.g. paragraph [0026]),
said metasurface optic introducing a spatially varying phase shift across incident short- wave infrared (SWIR) light waves (see e.g. paragraph [0070] for near infrared wavelengths).
Wolk et al. fails to disclose
said subwavelength nanostructures having a same height of between 800nm and 1100nm and a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, with a same spacing between axes of symmetry of each truncated cone nanostructure being between 550nm and 750nm,
wherein a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures.
However, Wolk et al. does disclose a height of 5microns or less (see e.g. paragraph [0065]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. Wolk et al. also discloses a pitch/spacing between exes of symmetry of the nanostructures of 600nm (see e.g. paragraph [0067]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Wolk et al. also discloses varying shapes and size of the nanostructures depending on the location of the nanostructure within the film (see e.g. paragraph [0071], Figures 1-2.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Daily, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93° as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, 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 also have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93° as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Daily, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Wolk et al. with said subwavelength nanostructures having a same height of between 800nm and 1100nm and a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93° as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure with a same spacing between axes of symmetry of each truncated cone nanostructure being between 550nm and 750nm, wherein a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures.
By selecting the size, shape, and spacing of the nanostructures, the device may be tuned to work in a particular wavelength range, such as SWIR.
In regard to claim 4, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1360nm and 1380nm.
However, Wolk et al. does disclose a wavelength range of near infrared (see e.g. paragraph [0070] and note near IR generally covers ~700-1400nm), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1360nm and 1380nm, 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1360nm and 1380nm.
Selecting the wavelength range for the operating range of the device in the IR would allow the device to be used in devices that use IR light technology such as LIDAR and time of flight measurements for determining proximity to objects.
In regard to claim 5, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sidewall angle is 92°.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the sidewall angle is 92°, 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the sidewall angle is 92°.
By selecting the size, shape, and spacing of the nanostructures, the device may be tuned to work in a particular wavelength range, such as SWIR.
In regard to claim 6, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1260nm and 1460nm.
However, Wolk et al. does disclose a wavelength range of near infrared (see e.g. paragraph [0070] and note near IR generally covers ~700-1400nm), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1260nm and 1460nm, 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1260nm and 1460nm.
Selecting the wavelength range for the operating range of the device in the IR would allow the device to be used in devices that use IR light technology such as LIDAR and time of flight measurements for determining proximity to objects.
In regard to claim 7, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein at least one unit cell is comprised of an arrangement of subwavelength nanostructures 103 into a rectangular pattern, hexagonal pattern, triangular pattern, radial pattern, or polygonal pattern (see e.g. Figure 2 for at least rectangular, radial, polygonal patterns).
In regard to claim 19, Wolk et al. discloses a metasurface optic 100 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]), comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
one or more unit cells (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and note there is at least one unit cell), each unit cell comprising a specific arrangement of subwavelength (see e.g. paragraph [0025]) nanostructures 103 (see e.g. paragraphs [0052]-[0053]);
said subwavelength nanostructures being truncated cone nanostructures (see e.g. paragraph [0026]),
said metasurface optic introducing a spatially varying phase shift across incident short- wave infrared (SWIR) light waves (see e.g. paragraph [0070] for near infrared wavelengths).
Wolk et al. fails to disclose
said subwavelength nanostructures having a same height of between 800nm and 1100nm and a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, with a same spacing between axes of symmetry of each truncated cone nanostructure being between 550nm and 750nm,
wherein a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures,
wherein radii of the truncated cone nanostructures are selected from a discrete set of values that are spaced apart by 1nm and are between 75nm and 250nm;
a wavelength of between 1360nm and 1380nm.
However, Wolk et al. does disclose a height of 5 microns or less (see e.g. paragraph [0065]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. Wolk et al. also discloses a pitch/spacing between exes of symmetry of the nanostructures of 600nm (see e.g. paragraph [0067]), and a lateral dimension of 600 nm or less (see e.g. paragraph [0069]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed ranges. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Wolk et al. also discloses varying shapes and size of the nanostructures depending on the location of the nanostructure within the film (see e.g. paragraph [0071], Figures 1-2.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Daily, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, 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 also have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Daily, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Finally, Wolk et al. does disclose a wavelength range of near infrared (see e.g. paragraph [0070] and note near IR generally covers ~700-1400nm), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the SWIR light waves have a wavelength of between 1360nm and 1380nm, 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 Wolk et al. with said subwavelength nanostructures having a same height of between 800nm and 1100nm and a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, with a same spacing between axes of symmetry of each truncated cone nanostructure being between 550nm and 750nm, wherein a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures,
wherein radii of the truncated cone nanostructures are selected from a discrete set of values that are spaced apart by 1nm and are between 75nm and 250nm; a wavelength of between 1360nm and 1380nm.
By selecting the size, shape, and spacing of the nanostructures, the device may be tuned to work in a particular wavelength range, such as SWIR. Further, selecting the wavelength range for the operating range of the device in the IR would allow the device to be used in devices that use IR light technology such as LIDAR and time of flight measurements for determining proximity to objects.
In regard to claim 20, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 19 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sidewall angle is 92°.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the sidewall angle is 92°, 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the sidewall angle is 92°.
By selecting the size, shape, and spacing of the nanostructures, the device may be tuned to work in a particular wavelength range, such as SWIR.
In regard to claim 23, Wolk et al. discloses an optic 100 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]), comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
an arrangement of subwavelength nanostructures 103 (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0052]-[0053]);
said subwavelength nanostructures being truncated cone nanostructures (see e.g. paragraph [0026]).
Wolk et al. fails to disclose
said subwavelength nanostructures being truncated cone nanostructures having a same height of between 800nm and 1100nm and a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, with a same spacing between axes of symmetry of each truncated cone nanostructure being between 550nm and 750nm,
wherein a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures.
However, Wolk et al. does disclose a height of 5 microns or less (see e.g. paragraph [0065]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. Wolk et al. also discloses a pitch/spacing between exes of symmetry of the nanostructures of 600nm (see e.g. paragraph [0067]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Wolk et al. also discloses varying shapes and size of the nanostructures depending on the location of the nanostructure within the film (see e.g. paragraph [0071], Figures 1-2.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Daily, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, 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 also have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Daily, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
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 Wolk et al. with said subwavelength nanostructures being truncated cone nanostructures having a same height of between 800nm and 1100nm and a sidewall angle selected from 91° to 93°, as measured between a sidewall and a truncated top of each truncated cone nanostructure, with a same spacing between axes of symmetry of each truncated cone nanostructure being between 550nm and 750nm, wherein a base of certain ones of the truncated cone nanostructures has a different radius than others of the truncated cone nanostructures.
By selecting the size, shape, and spacing of the nanostructures, the device may be tuned to work in a particular wavelength range, such as SWIR.
In regard to claim 26, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 23 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sidewall angle is 92°.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the sidewall angle is 92°, 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the sidewall angle is 92°.
By selecting the size, shape, and spacing of the nanostructures, the device may be tuned to work in a particular wavelength range, such as SWIR.
Claims 2, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolk et al. (US 2022/0404525 A1) in view of Fan et al. (US 2018/0045953 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the truncated cone nanostructures are formed of polysilicon and are embedded within a body of silicon dioxide.
However Fan et al. discloses nanostructures (denoted “geometric structures”, paragraph [0003]) formed of polysilicon (see e.g. paragraph [0004]) and embedded within a body of silicon dioxide (see e.g. paragraphs [0066] and [0073]).
Given the teachings of Fan 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the truncated cone nanostructures are formed of polysilicon and are embedded within a body of silicon dioxide.
The combination of silicon-in-silicon dioxide provide improved efficiency of the device (see e.g. paragraph [0066] of Fan et al.).
In regard to claim 21, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 19 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the truncated cone nanostructures are formed of polysilicon and are embedded within a body of silicon dioxide.
However Fan et al. discloses nanostructures (denoted “geometric structures”, paragraph [0003]) formed of polysilicon (see e.g. paragraph [0004]) and embedded within a body of silicon dioxide (see e.g. paragraphs [0066] and [0073]).
Given the teachings of Fan 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the truncated cone nanostructures are formed of polysilicon and are embedded within a body of silicon dioxide.
The combination of silicon-in-silicon dioxide provide improved efficiency of the device (see e.g. paragraph [0066] of Fan et al.).
In regard to claim 24, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 23 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the truncated cone nanostructures are formed of polysilicon and are embedded within a body of silicon dioxide.
However Fan et al. discloses nanostructures (denoted “geometric structures”, paragraph [0003]) formed of polysilicon (see e.g. paragraph [0004]) and embedded within a body of silicon dioxide (see e.g. paragraphs [0066] and [0073]).
Given the teachings of Fan 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 Wolk et al. with wherein the truncated cone nanostructures are formed of polysilicon and are embedded within a body of silicon dioxide.
The combination of silicon-in-silicon dioxide provide improved efficiency of the device (see e.g. paragraph [0066] of Fan et al.).
Claims 3, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolk et al. (US 2022/0404525 A1) in view of Fan et al. (US 2018/0045953 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2007/0297053 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
a layer of silicon nitride 102 stacked on a first face of the body 104 (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figure 1).
Wolk et al., in view of Fan et al., fails to disclose
an anti-reflective coating stacked on the silicon nitride layer.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
an anti-reflective coating 105 stacked on an optic device (see e.g. paragraph [0028]).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 Wolk et al., in view of Fan et al., with an anti-reflective coating stacked on the silicon nitride layer.
Providing the ant-reflection would enhance the optical quality/operability of the device (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Wang et al.).
In regard to claim 22, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, and
a layer of silicon nitride 102 stacked on a first face of the body 104 (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figure 1).
Wolk et al., in view of Fan et al., fails to disclose
an anti-reflective coating stacked on the silicon nitride layer.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
an anti-reflective coating 105 stacked on an optic device (see e.g. paragraph [0028]).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 Wolk et al., in view of Fan et al., with an anti-reflective coating stacked on the silicon nitride layer.
Providing the ant-reflection would enhance the optical quality/operability of the device (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Wang et al.).
In regard to claim 25, Wolk et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 24 above, and
a layer of silicon nitride 102 stacked on a first face of the body 104 (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figure 1).
Wolk et al., in view of Fan et al., fails to disclose
an anti-reflective coating stacked on the silicon nitride layer.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
an anti-reflective coating 105 stacked on an optic device (see e.g. paragraph [0028]).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 Wolk et al., in view of Fan et al., with an anti-reflective coating stacked on the silicon nitride layer.
Providing the ant-reflection would enhance the optical quality/operability of the device (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Wang et al.).
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 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