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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 cites the limitation “a second piezoelectric layer capping the interdigital transducer structure,” a limitation which is entirely provided for, and further limited within amended claim 9. As such claim 13 fails to further limit the claims upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US PGPub 20140266511) in view of Kimura (US PGPub 20190097602) and Yaoi et al. (US PGPub 20120133246), all references of record, and Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838)
As per claim 1:
Turner discloses in Fig. 5:
A radio frequency acoustic filter configured to filter a radiofrequency signal, the acoustic filter comprising:
an input terminal (node at one end of Fig. 5) configured to receive a radio frequency signal;
an output terminal (node at other end of Fig. 5);
a plurality of resonators (Res1-9) between the input terminal and the output terminal, the plurality of resonators arranged to filter the radio frequency signal (being a microwave filter, wherein microwave frequencies are within radio frequencies),
at least one resonator being an acoustic wave resonator ([0005]).
Turner does not disclose:
at least one resonator of the plurality of resonators including a support substrate, a functional layer, and a piezoelectric layer, both the piezoelectric layer and the functional layer supported by the support substrate, and a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure at least partially formed in the piezoelectric layer, the functional layer between the first piezoelectric layer and the support substrate, and a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to increase a static capacitance.
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (2);
a functional layer (high and low acoustic impedance layers 3-7) on the substrate;
a piezoelectric layer (8) on the functional layer;
both the piezoelectric layer and the functional layer supported by the support substrate, and
an interdigital transducer structure (9) at least partially in the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 1).
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7).
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
The addition of a second piezoelectric layer (second piezoelectric thin-film layer 24) directly over and capping an interdigital transducer structure (interlocking conductive sections 32, part of IDT 26).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific acoustic wave device of Kimura for at least one of the generic acoustic wave resonators of Turner et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent resonator able to provide the same function and to further provide the benefit of reducing a spurious response as taught by Kimura ([0012]).
It would have been further obvious to form the interdigital transducer structure as a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to provide the benefit of increasing the stop band can be increased while the acoustic velocity of the boundary acoustic wave is increased as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0159])
It would have been further obvious to provide a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to provide the benefit of enhancing vibrational characteristics and performance of the resonator, as taught by Bhattacharjee (abstract).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses at least one resonator of the plurality of resonators including a support substrate, a functional layer, and a piezoelectric layer, both the piezoelectric layer and the functional layer supported by the support substrate, and a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure at least partially formed in the piezoelectric layer, the functional layer between the first piezoelectric layer and the support substrate, and a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to increase a static capacitance (wherein the static capacitance is increased by the addition of a second piezoelectric layer on the transducer).
As per claim 2:
Turner does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer structure has an embedment depth dembed in a range between 0.01 λ and 0.10 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
the interdigital transducer structure has an embedment depth dembed in a range between 0.01 λ and 0.10 λ ([0065]), where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode ([0064]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the interdigital transducer structure has an embedment depth dembed in a range between 0.01 λ and 0.10 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
As per claim 3:
Turner discloses in Fig. 5:
The use of lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation ([0017]).
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) ([0025])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the piezoelectric layer to include lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation as a known-in-the art specific lithium tantalate piezoelectric layer use for acoustic wave resonators as disclosed by Turner et al. ([0017])
As per claim 4:
Turner does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer including a first layer of molybdenum (Mo) has a height hm. in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
The interdigital transducer may be formed of Al with Mo ([0099]), and the height of the electrode is 0.1 λ ([0061]).
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7) including a first layer (13a) of molybdenum (Mo) ([0151]) has a height hm in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ ([0154]), where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the interdigital transducer structure of the combination of claim 1 as a multilayer interdigital transducer wherein a first layer is formed of Mo and has a height hm in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode to provide the benefit of increasing acoustic velocity while increasing the stop band as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0159])
As per claim 5:
Turner does not disclose:
the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure includes a second layer of aluminum (Al) has a height hAl in a range between 0.04 λ and 0.08 λ where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
The interdigital transducer may be formed of Al with Mo ([0099]), and the height of the electrode is 0.1 λ ([0061]).
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure includes a second layer of aluminum (Al) [0161] that is used to reduce the resistivity of the electrode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure of the combination of claim 4 to include a second layer of aluminum (Al) as per Yaoi et al. to provide the benefit of reducing the electrical resistivity of the electrode ([0161]).
It would be further obvious for the second layer of aluminum to have a height hAl in a range between 0.04 λ and 0.08 λ where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode, as Yaoi et al. provides the height of the molybdenum to be 0.03 λ, Kimura provides for the height of the IDT to be 0.1 λ, and the height of the aluminum layer is a design parameter that provides the benefit of reducing the resistivity of the electrode as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0161])
As per claim 7:
Turner does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer structure has a reverse tapered shape.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
the interdigital transducer structure has a reverse tapered shape (seen in Fig. 7).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the interdigital transducer structure to have a reverse tapered shape to provide the benefit of increasing the stop band as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0014])
As per claim 8:
Turner discloses in Fig. 5 & 17:
A mobile device comprising an antenna and a radio frequency front end module ([0075]), the radio frequency front end module including the acoustic filter.
Turner does not discloses the acoustic filter of claim 1.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses a mobile device comprising an antenna and a radio frequency front end module, the radio frequency front end module including the acoustic filter of claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US PGPub 20190097602) in view of Yaoi et al. (US PGPub 20120133246), all references of record, and Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838)
As per claim 9:
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (2);
a piezoelectric layer (8) supported by the support substrate;
a functional layer (high and low acoustic impedance layers 3-7) between the first piezoelectric layer and the support substrate; and
an interdigital transducer structure (9) at least partially formed in the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 1),
wherein the interdigital transducer structure has an embedment depth dembed in a range between 0.01 λ and 0.10 λ ([0065]), where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode ([0064]).
Kimura does not disclose:
The interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure and a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to increase a static capacitance.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7).
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
The addition of a second piezoelectric layer (second piezoelectric thin-film layer 24) directly over and capping an interdigital transducer structure (interlocking conductive sections 32, part of IDT 26).
It would have been further obvious to form the interdigital transducer structure as a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to provide the benefit of increasing the stop band can be increased while the acoustic velocity of the boundary acoustic wave is increased as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0159])
It would have been further obvious to provide a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to provide the benefit of enhancing vibrational characteristics and performance of the resonator, as taught by Bhattacharjee (abstract).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure and a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to increase a static capacitance (wherein the static capacitance is increased by the addition of a second piezoelectric layer on the transducer).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Kimura (US PGPub 20190097602) in view of Yaoi et al. (US PGPub 20120133246), all references of record, and Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Turner et al. (US PGPub 20140266511), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 9, as rejected above.
As per claim 10:
The resultant combination discloses in Kimura Fig. 1:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) ([0025])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation.
Turner et al. discloses:
The use of lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation ([0017]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the piezoelectric layer to include lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation as a known-in-the art specific lithium tantalate piezoelectric layer use for acoustic wave resonators as disclosed by Turner et al. ([0017])
As per claim 11:
The resultant combination discloses in Kimura in Fig. 1:
The interdigital transducer may be formed of Al with Mo ([0099])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer including a first layer of molybdenum (Mo) has a height hm. in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7) including a first layer (13a) of molybdenum (Mo) ([0151]) has a height hm in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ ([0154]), where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the interdigital transducer structure of resultant combination as a multilayer interdigital transducer wherein a first layer is formed of Mo and has a height hm in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode to provide the benefit of increasing acoustic velocity while increasing the stop band as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0159])
As per claim 12:
The resultant combination discloses in Kimura in Fig. 1:
The interdigital transducer may be formed of Al with Mo ([0099]), and the height of the electrode is 0.1 λ ([0061]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure includes a second layer of aluminum (Al) has a height hAl in a range between 0.04 λ and 0.08 λ where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure includes a second layer of aluminum (Al) [0161] that is used to reduce the resistivity of the electrode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure of the resultant combination to include a second layer of aluminum (Al) as per Yaoi et al. to provide the benefit of reducing the electrical resistivity of the electrode ([0161]).
It would be further obvious for the second layer of aluminum to have a height hAl in a range between 0.04 λ and 0.08 λ where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode, as Yaoi et al. provides the height of the molybdenum to be 0.03 λ, Kimura provides for the height of the IDT to be 0.1 λ, and the height of the aluminum layer is a design parameter that provides the benefit of reducing the resistivity of the electrode as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0161])
As per claim 13:
The resultant combination discloses in Bhattacharjee Figs. 3-6:
a second piezoelectric layer (second piezoelectric thin-film layer 24) capping the interdigital transducer structure(interlocking conductive sections 32, part of IDT 26).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 9, the combination discloses a second piezoelectric layer capping the interdigital transducer structure.
As per claim 14:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer structure has a reverse tapered shape.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
the interdigital transducer structure has a reverse tapered shape (seen in Fig. 7).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the interdigital transducer structure to have a reverse tapered shape to provide the benefit of increasing the stop band as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0014])
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US PGPub 20190097602) in view of Yaoi et al. (US PGPub 20120133246), both references of record, and Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838)
As per claim 15:
Kimura discloses in Fig. 1:
A method of forming an acoustic wave device comprising:
forming a support substrate (2);
forming a functional layer (high and low acoustic impedance layers 3-7) on the substrate;
forming a piezoelectric layer (8) directly on the functional layer (as seen in Fig. 1); and
forming an interdigital transducer structure (9) at least partially in the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 1).
Kimura does not disclose:
The interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure and forming a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to increase a static capacitance.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7).
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
The addition of a second piezoelectric layer (second piezoelectric thin-film layer 24) directly over and capping an interdigital transducer structure (interlocking conductive sections 32, part of IDT 26).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the interdigital transducer structure as a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to provide the benefit of increasing the stop band can be increased while the acoustic velocity of the boundary acoustic wave is increased as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0159])
It would have been further obvious to provide a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to provide the benefit of enhancing vibrational characteristics and performance of the resonator, as taught by Bhattacharjee (abstract).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure and forming a second piezoelectric layer directly over and capping the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure to increase a static capacitance (wherein the static capacitance is increased by the addition of a second piezoelectric layer on the transducer).
As per claim 16:
Kimura discloses in claim 1:
the interdigital transducer structure has an embedment depth dembed in a range between 0.01 λ and 0.10 λ ([0065]), where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode ([0064]).
Kimura does not disclose:
The interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 15, the combination discloses the interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer structure.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Kimura (US PGPub 20190097602) in view of Yaoi et al. (US PGPub 20120133246), all references of record, and Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Turner et al. (US PGPub 20140266511)
The resultant combination discloses the method of forming an acoustic wave device of claim 16, as rejected above.
As per claim 17:
The resultant combination discloses in Kimura in Fig. 1:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) ([0025])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20º and 360º is a full rotation.
Turner et al. discloses:
The use of lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation ([0017]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the piezoelectric layer of the resultant combination to include lithium tantalate (LiTaO3, LT) with a LT cut angle a for XY-LiTaO3, where a is equal or larger than approximately 20 º and 360º is a full rotation as a known-in-the art specific lithium tantalate piezoelectric layer use for acoustic wave resonators as disclosed by Turner et al. ([0017])
As per claim 18:
The resultant combination discloses in Kimura in Fig. 1:
The interdigital transducer may be formed of Al with Mo ([0099])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer structure is a multi-layer interdigital transducer including a first layer of molybdenum (Mo) has a height hm. in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
An embedded interdigital transducer structure (13) that is a multi-layer interdigital transducer (as seen in Fig. 7) including a first layer (13a) of molybdenum (Mo) ([0151]) has a height hm in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ ([0154]), where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the interdigital transducer structure of resultant combination as a multilayer interdigital transducer wherein a first layer is formed of Mo and has a height hm in a range between 0.02 λ and 0.08 λ, where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode to provide the benefit of increasing acoustic velocity while increasing the stop band as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0159])
As per claim 19:
The resultant combination discloses in Kimura in Fig. 1:
The interdigital transducer may be formed of Al with Mo ([0099]), and the height of the electrode is 0.1 λ ([0061]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure includes a second layer of aluminum (Al) has a height hAl in a range between 0.04 λ and 0.08 λ where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode.
Yaoi et al. discloses in Fig. 7:
the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure includes a second layer of aluminum (Al) [0161] that is used to reduce the resistivity of the electrode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the multi-layer interdigital transducer structure of the resultant combination to include a second layer of aluminum (Al) as per Yaoi et al. to provide the benefit of reducing the electrical resistivity of the electrode ([0161]).
It would be further obvious for the second layer of aluminum to have a height hAl in a range between 0.04 λ and 0.08 λ where λ is a wavelength along an interdigital transducer propagation direction of a main mode, as Yaoi et al. provides the height of the molybdenum to be 0.03 λ, Kimura provides for the height of the IDT to be 0.1 λ, and the height of the aluminum layer is a design parameter that provides the benefit of reducing the resistivity of the electrode as taught by Yaoi et al. ([0161])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 09/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 & 7-19 under Turner, Kimura, and Yaoi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bhattacharjee in combination with the previous references.
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843