Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, the applicant argues that the cited prior art does noy teach a vibration detecting sensor disposed within the body, the vibration detecting sensor to generate a signal based on a vibration of the surface, wherein the computer system is configured to determine whether the vibration of the surface disturbed a metrology process of the metrology equipment based on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor [see applicant’s arguments pg. 9, pg. 10 L. 1-6].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), which was used in the rejection teaches a vibration sensor to generate a signal based on a vibration of the surface, wherein the computer system is configured to determine whether the vibration of the surface disturbed a metrology process of the metrology equipment based on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor [fig. 1 elements 6 (computer system) and 13 (sensor coupled to a surface of metrology), fig. 2 element 11 (vibration sensor), col. 9 L. 33-38 and L. 55-67, col. 10 L. 1-12 and col. 13 L. 38-50, (computer system determining whether the vibration of the surface disturbed a metrology process of the metrology equipment based on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor), col. 11 L. 62-65 (vibration sensor), col. 12 L. 6-15 (computer system)]. Furthermore, Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367), which was also part of the rejection, teaches that a vibration sensor can be disposed within the body of the sensing device in order to measure vibrations of the electronic device [fig. 1 element 105 and 103 (body) and 112 (vibration sensor within the body), col. 4 L. 12-17]. As shown above, the prior art teaches the argued limitations. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Also, the applicant argues that the examiner’s rejection rely on an excessive number of references teaching different limitations which is indicative of hindsight reconstruction [see applicant’s arguments pg. 10 L. 13-21]. The applicant also argues that the examiner has not provided a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined references that are in different fields of endeavor [see applicant’s arguments pg. 11 L. 6-14].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. First of all, the references used in the rejection are not in different field of endeavor as argued by the applicant because in general, each of the references are in the field of sensing vibrations of a device affected by those vibrations [see Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) col. 1 L. 18-33, see Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437) col. 11 L. 62-65, see Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) col. 6 L. 29-31, see Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367), col. 4 L. 12-17]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the references’ teachings because it will permit a system to sense vibrations accurately, to correct measurements or processes affected by those vibrations and to transmit sensed vibrations data for analysis. Furthermore, the fact that four references were used in the rejection does not mean that the examiner used hindsight reconstruction because as shown above, the references used in the rejection are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings. For the reasons provided above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Objections
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 7-8 “wherein the computer system is”. The limitation of “computer system” should be preceded by the word “a” because it is the first time the limitation is defined. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: ““wherein [[the]] a computer system is””.
In regards to claim(s) 2-12, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, 13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367).
In regards to claim 1, Doyle teaches a system comprising metrology equipment for an electronic device manufacturing system [col. 1 L. 13-18]. Doyle teaches that the metrology equipment is configured to provide metrology data associated with one or more substrates processed by the electronic device manufacturing system [col. 1 L. 13-18].
Doyle teaches that measurements made by the metrology equipment can be affected by vibrations from various sources [col. 1 L. 18-33]. However, Doyle does not teach that the system comprises a monitoring system to sense those vibrations.
On the other hand, Brockhaus teaches that metrology equipment that is sensitive to vibrations can comprise a vibration sensor (monitoring system) that senses the vibrations in order to perform a correction to the measurements [fig. 2 element 11, col. 2 L. 1-3, L. 14-13 and L. 34-45, col. 11 L. 25-27 and L. 60-65]. Brockhaus teaches that a body of the sensor is coupled to a surface of the metrology equipment [fig. 2 elements 11 and 13, col. 2 L. 55-60, col. 7 L. 20-23]. This teaching means that the monitoring system comprises a body configured to couple to a surface of the metrology equipment. Furthermore, Brockhaus teaches that the monitoring system comprises a vibration detecting sensor, the vibration detecting sensor to generate a signal based on a vibration of the surface [fig. 2 element 11, col. 2 L. 55-60, col. 7 L. 20-23, col. 11 L. 60-65]. Also, Brockhaus teaches that a computer system is configured to determine whether the vibration of the surface disturbed a metrology process of the metrology equipment based on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor [fig. 1 element 6 (computer system), col. 9 L. 33-38 and L. 55-67, col. 10 L. 1-12 and col. 13 L. 38-50, (computer system determining whether the vibration of the surface disturbed a metrology process of the metrology equipment based on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor), col. 12 L. 6-15 (computer system)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Brockhaus’ teachings of including a monitoring system in the system taught by Doyle because it will permit the system to detect vibrations that affect the metrology equipment and to correct any measurements that have been affected by the vibrations.
The combination of Doyle and Brockhaus teaches that a computer system receives the measurements made by the vibration detecting sensor via a cable [see Brockhaus fig. 1 element 6, col. 12 L. 6-15]. However, the combination does not teach that the monitoring system comprises a wired communication device and a wireless communication device.
On the other hand, Hung teaches that a monitoring system, comprising a body attached to a surface in which vibration measurements are performed and a vibration detecting sensor [col. 6 L. 29-34 (body attached to a surface), col. 6 L. 31-36 and L. 43-50 (vibration detecting sensor)], can also comprise a wired communication device disposed in or on the body, wherein the wired communication device is configured to transmit the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor to a computer system via a wired connection with the computer system [col. 6 L. 58-66 (computer system receiving transmitted vibration signal), col. 7 L. 51-53 (wired communication device)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hung’s teachings of including a wired communication device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to reliably transmit the sensed signal to a device that can evaluate and use the sensed vibrations.
The combination of Doyle, Brockhaus and Hung teaches that instead of having a wired communication device, the monitoring system can comprises a wireless communication device to transmit the data to the computer system [see Hung col. 6 L. 58-66 (computer system receiving transmitted vibration signal), col. 7 L. 53-57]. This teaching means that alternatively, the monitoring system can comprise a wireless communication device disposed in or on the body, wherein the wireless communication device is configured to establish a wireless connection with the computer system and to transmit the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor to the computer system via the wireless connection. However, the combination does not teach that the monitoring system can comprise both a wired communication device and a wireless communication device and that the vibration sensor is located within the body.
On the other hand, Silverberg teaches that a sensing device that can be attached to an electronic device for measuring different parameters can comprise a vibration sensor within the body of the sensing device in order to measure vibrations of the electronic device [fig. 1 element 105 and 103 (body) and 112 (vibration sensor within the body), col. 4 L. 12-17]. Also, Silverberg teaches that the sensing device can comprises a wireless communication device and a wired communication device for data communication [fig. 1 elements 150 and 190, col. 4 L. 17-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Silberberg’s teachings of having the vibration sensor within the body and a monitoring system comprising both a wired and a wireless communication device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to protect the vibration sensor from the external environment and to maintain communications even when one of the communication devices is not working.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the computer system is to execute an application providing a graphical user interface (GUI) to present vibration measurements [see Hung col. 6 L. 61-67].
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the vibration detecting sensor is an accelerometer [see Brockhaus col. 11 L. 60-65, see Hung col. 6 L. 43-45].
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed metrology equipment and claimed monitoring system coupled to the metrology equipment. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the metrology equipment and the monitoring system are part of an electronic device manufacturing system [see Hung col. 1 L. 6-13, col. 6 L. 29-36].
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (US-10,126,782).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the body comprises a flexible substrate that is to conform to a shape of the surface.
On the other hand, Gao teaches that the electronic components and the body of the monitoring system can be made of flexible materials in order to attach the system to any shape of surface [see Gao col. 4 L. 15-20 and L. 31-40]. This teaching means that the body comprises a flexible substrate that is to conform to a shape of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gao’s teachings of making the body and electronic components to be flexible in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the monitoring system to better attach to the tool and to detect vibration of the tool more accurately.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Gao, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Scott et al. (US-2020/0284694).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the monitoring system comprises a signal processing component [see Hung col. 6 L. 47-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hung’s teachings of including a signal processing component in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the monitoring system to process the signal locally.
However, the combination does not teach that the signal processing component is configured to at least one of: 1) convert the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor into acceleration data, 2) amplify one or more characteristics of the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor, or 3) perform one or more filtering operations on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor.
On the other hand, Scott teaches that a vibration monitoring system can comprise signal a processing component is configured to at least one of: 1) convert the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor into acceleration data, 2) amplify one or more characteristics of the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor, or 3) perform one or more filtering operations on the signal generated by the vibration detecting sensor [fig. 1 element 111, par. 0024, par. 0097 L. 16-20, par. 0164].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Scott’s teachings of filtering, amplifying and generating acceleration data in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the monitoring device to clean the signals received from the sensor before acceleration data is transmitted.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Scott, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Becker et al. (US-2023/0143606).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the vibration sensor can be a motion sensor and that the computer system is configured to display the sensed data [see Hung col. 6 L. 41-46 and L. 61-66]. This teaching means that the computer system is to convert the signal received from the wired communication device or the wireless communication device to motion data for display on the GUI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hung’s teachings of using a motion sensor and displaying the sensed data in the system taught by the combination because a motion sensor provides reliable means to sense vibrations, and displaying the data will permit a user to see the sensed data.
However, the combination does not teach that the motion data is velocity or displacement data.
On the other hand, Becker teaches that the motion sensor used to detect vibration can be a velocity sensor or a displacement sensor [par. 0075 L. 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Becker’s teachings of a displacement sensor or velocity sensor to detect vibration in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to accurately detect vibration of the tool.
The combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Becker teaches that the vibration sensor comprises a displacement sensor or a velocity sensor [see Becker par. 0075 L. 1-3], and that the computer system converts the signals of the sensor to display the sensed data [see Hung col. 6 L. 61-66]. These teaching means that the computer system is to convert the signal received from the wired communication device or the wireless communication device to at least one of velocity data or displacement data for display on the GUI.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US-10,872,793).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the computer system transforms the signal received from the wired communication device or the wireless communication device into a frequency domain for display on the GUI [see Hung col. 6 L. 61-66]. However, the combination does not teach that Fast Fourier transform is used to transform the signal into the frequency domain.
On the other hand, Wang teaches that Fast Fourier transform can be used to transform the signal into the frequency domain [col. 7 L. 63-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wang’s teachings of using Fast Fourier transform to transform the signal into frequency domain in the system taught by the combination because Fast Fourier transform provides an easy and accurate way to transform a signal into the frequency domain.
Claim(s) 7, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Wascat et al. (US-9,921,136).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the computer system is to apply at least one of a high pass filter or a low pass filter to the signal.
On the other hand, Wascat teaches that a computer system receiving vibration data can perform high pass and lowpass filtering [col. 10 L. 64-67]. This teaching means that the computer system is to apply at least one of a high pass filter or a low pass filter to the signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wascat’s teachings of the computer system performing low or high pass filtering on the vibration signal in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to clean the vibration signal before analysis is performed.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that a weight of monitoring system is configured to maintain or increase a resonance frequency of the vibration detecting sensor.
On the other hand, Waskat teaches that the weight of the system affects the resonance frequency of the vibration detection sensor and that system is built in a way to reduce the frequency response impacts of the weight of the system [col. 2 L. 38-43,col. 12 L. 59-67, col. 3 L. 4-14,col. 13 L. 1-24, col. 14 L. 9-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wascat’s teachings of building the system in a way that will reduce the frequency response impacts of the weight of the system in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to accurately sense vibrations.
The combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Waskat teaches that the weight of the system has an impact on the resonance frequency of the vibration detecting sensor [see Waskat col. 2 L. 38-43,col. 12 L. 59-67, col. 3 L. 4-14,col. 13 L. 1-24, col. 14 L. 9-17]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the weight of the system is configured to maintain or increase a resonance frequency of the vibration detecting sensor. However, it is clear from the combination’s teachings that the weight of the system has an impact on the resonance frequency of the vibration detecting sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to build the system with low weight materials that will reduce the weight the system thereby reducing the impact on the resonance frequency of the vibration detecting sensor. In other words, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to build the system with a weight that at least maintains a resonance frequency of the vibration detecting sensor.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Wascat, as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US-12,004,298) and Wascat et al. (US-9,921,136).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that a battery disposed on a substrate, the battery having a mass at least ten times less than a mass of the monitoring system.
On the other hand, Matsumoto teaches that a monitoring system can comprise a battery disposed on a PCB (substrate) [figs. 3A-3D, col. 7 L. 49-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Matsumoto’s teachings of having a battery on a substrate in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to work without an external power supply.
The combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Matsumoto does not teach that the battery has a mass at least ten times less than a mass of the monitoring system.
On the other hand, Waskat teaches that the mass of the battery affects vibration measurements and that an elastomeric member can be used to reduce the effects that the mass of the battery has on the vibration measurements [col. 12 L. 59-67, col. 13 L. 1-24, col. 14 L. 9-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wascat’s teachings of including an elastomeric member to reduce the effects that the mass of the battery has on the vibration measurements in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to sense vibrations more accurately.
The combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg, Matsumoto and Wascat does not explicitly teach that the battery has a mass at least ten times less than a mass of the monitoring system. However, the combination clearly teaches that the mass of the battery affects the vibration measurements [see Wascat col. 12 L. 59-67, col. 13 L. 1-24]. This teaching means that the greater the mass the battery is the greater the vibration measurements are going to be affected. In other words, the lesser the mass of the battery is the more accurate the vibration measurements are. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to power the system with a battery that has a low mass including a battery which mass is at least ten times less than a mass of the monitoring system because that type of battery will be able to power the system while permitting the system to measure the vibrations more accurately.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US-12,004,298) and Sun et al. (US-9,973,121).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the monitoring system comprises a power component disposed on a substrate.
On the other hand, Matsumoto teaches that electronic components of a monitoring system can be implemented on a substrate [figs. 3A-3D].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Matsumoto’s teachings of implementing the electronic components in a substrate in the system taught by the combination because to reduce the size of the system and making it easier to mass produce the system.
The combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and Matsumoto teaches that the electronic components of the monitoring system can be implemented on a substrate including a power supply that provides a voltage to vibration detection sensor [see Matsumoto figs. 3A-3D, col. 7 L. 49-55]. However, the combination does not teach that the electronic components include power component.
On the other hand, Sun teaches when a power supply provides a voltage that is higher than the voltage needed to power the sensor, the electronic components of the system can include a voltage reducing circuit (power component) configured to receive a first voltage, to convert the first voltage to a second voltage that is lower than the first voltage and to apply the second voltage to the detection sensor [col. 23 L. 12-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sun’s teachings of including a power component that coverts the voltage provided by the power supply to a suitable voltage for the sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to be powered by any type of power supply including power supplies that do not provide the voltage that is needed to power the detection sensor.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg, Matsumoto and Sun, as shown in the rejection of claim 9 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (US-11,280,381) in view of Brockhaus et al. (US-10,670,437), Hung et al. (US-11,817,336) and Silverberg et al. (US-10,571,367) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung and Silverberg, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the metrology equipment is coupled to a process or transfer chamber.
On the other hand, AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art that metrology equipment can be coupled to the transfer chamber [see applicant’s specification par. 0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use AAPA’s teachings of including metrology in the chamber in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to monitor products that are been manufactured.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Doyle, Brockhaus, Hung, Silverberg and AAPA, as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights