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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. DeCastro’s p. 55 ¶ “Bellec et al…” teaches the amended limitation:
[AltContent: textbox (Bellec et al. have shown that in the case of silver-containing phosphate glasses the central part of the structuring laser beam tends to photo-dissociate silver NC's that had been created by a previous laser pass [34]. While the successive overlapping of laser passes destroys laser NC's, it does not allow for the significant novel production of fluorescent silver clusters. It demonstrates that the available silver reservoir for laser structuring and associated silver NC's production is mostly fully consumed during the first laser pass in such oxide glass (composition 40P2O5-55ZnO-1Ga2O3-4Ag2O mol%). This effect is highlighted in Fig. 6(a) where fluorescent structures are shown with distinct interdistances between two successive laser passes. For interdistances of 5 μm and 1 μm, the beam diameter is typically smaller or similar to the inner separation between a double-track structure, so that the resulting pattern shows a bright fluorescence (excitation at 375 nm). However, the interdistances of 0.5 μm leads to a strong overlapping between the intense central laser beam and pre-created silver NC's, which dominantly leads to the global erasure of produced silver NC's and finally to a poorly fluorescent pattern. While performing re-irradiation and erasing of pre-created silver NC's, the reservoir of available silver species for silver NC's is not refreshed nor refilled.)]
The intensity required for the photodissociation is inherent to deCastro/Bellec’s process. Furthermore, Applicant continues to argue that deCastro only teaches of changing fluorescence and not the erasure of refractive-index variation. In the bolded portions of the excerpt, deCastro/Bellec clearly teaches of erasure of the silver aggregates, wherein the Petit reference is used to equate the refractive index variation due to the inclusion (or exclusion) of the silver aggregates. As such, the 103 rejection remains. Claim 21 remains as containing allowable subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a, b, and c which can be nominally 0.
Claim 13 recites b and c which can be nominally 0.
Claim 14 recites a, b, and c which can be nominally 0.
Claim 16 recites “chosen from among the following”. The specification has not further clarified this limitation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interprets the limitation “any one of the following”. Amendments trying to modify the interpretation which has not been clarified by the specification will be considered as new matter. Furthermore, claims 15/16 sets precedent that a dopant is added to the composition; however, the dopant is in the form of a metallic ion. The Examiner is giving the claims lenient/broad interpretation that a metallic ion in the form of a batch material compound is supplementing the composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 17-18 recites “an intense zone”. The term “intense” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intense” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-23 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 line 18 recites “the intensity” which is missing antecedent basis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deCastro et al (May 2019, “Femtosecond laser micro-patterning of optical properties and functionalities in novel photosensitive silver-containing fluorophosphate glasses”) and further in view of Petit et al (2018, “On the femtosecond laser-induced photochemistry in silver-containing oxide glasses: mechanisms, related optical and physico-chemical properties, and technological applications”).
Regarding claim 1, deCastro teaches a method for producing a three-dimensional structure in a bulk of a transparent (Fig. 1(b)) oxide glass comprising silver ions (p. 52 ¶ “In this article…”), the method comprising: generating a laser beam composed of a series of ultrashort light pulses with a pulse duration (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”); focusing said beam at a desired depth in the glass (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”); irradiating the glass be said beam so as to form the structure in the glass along a predetermined trajectory, the number of pulses (p. 52 ¶ “By using back-and-forth…”), and repetition rate of the pulses (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”) being controlled to induce an accumulation of silver aggregates (p. 53 ¶ “The principle of DLW…”), the accumulation of aggregates generating a variation of optical refractive index.
DeCastro teaches that the laser beam was inscribed by a high precision 3D translation stage (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”) with micron distance control for each pass stage (p. 52 ¶ “Additional DLW was…”). This reads on the “irradiating the glass point by point by said beam” limitation. DeCastro teaches of using 40P2O5-55ZnO-1Ga2O3-4Ag2O which falls within the instantly claimed range (Table 1).
DeCastro teaches an excitation of the glass by the laser irradiation (p. 53 “3.2 Micro-patterning of Ag NC’s”) from repetitive femtosecond magnitude duration laser pulses (p. 52 “2.2 Femtosecond laser inscription procedure and laser-induced structures”). DeCastro does not expressly teach the pulse duration is shorter than a characteristic time of thermalization of the glass or the accumulation of silver aggregates located in an annular peripheral zone around the irradiation point. In the same field of endeavor, Petit teaches of laser thermalization (p. 295-296 “3.1.1 Material modification regimes”) of glass comprising silver ions (p. 297 “3.2 Single-pulse interaction and specific laser-induced mechanisms”) wherein femtosecond laser pulses producing multiphotonic interaction is less than the thermalization of the glass (Fig. 5) wherein the repetitive pulse yields an accumulation of the silver aggregates located in an annular peripheral zone of the irradiation point (p. 297-298 “3.3 Many-pulse interaction regime and cumulative effects’; Fig. 6). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the femtosecond light pulse of the laser beam taught by deCastro is a known to be shorter than the characteristic time of thermalization of the glass and is a multiphotonic excitation of the irradiation point the accumulates the silver aggregates in an annular peripheral zone around the irradiation point as evidenced by Petit.
DeCastro teaches the accumulation of aggregates generates a variation of optical refractive index (p. 54-55 “3.3 Demonstration of laser-creation of optical waveguides”). DeCastro teaches of a spot size of 1.6 μm with 0.5-1 μm step sizes (p. 52 ¶ “Additional DLW was…”). Petit also describes these variation of optical refractive index (p. 302-303 “4.2 Light guiding in bulk and fibers”). Petit also teaches the accumulation of the silver aggregates in the annular peripheral zone around the irradiation point (p. 298 Fig. 6). Petit does teach of point by point irradiation and grayscale control of an image encoded by the instantly claimed method (Fig. 7, p. 301 “4.1 High-density multilevel optical data storage”). Petit does not expressly teach the generated variation of optical refractive index in the annular peripheral zone around the irradiation point to erase a variation of optical refractive index in a portion of an annular peripheral zone generated around another irradiation point when said portion of peripheral zone coincides with a zone of the laser beam. DeCastro teaches the erasure of a previously written portion coincides with an intense zone of the laser beam that photodissociates silver aggregates (p. 55 ¶ “Bellec et al…”) wherein the optical refractive index change is related to the silver aggregates (p. 54-55 ¶ “After looking at…”). The photodissociation of DeCastro inherently satisfies the sufficient intensity of the laser beam. A prima facie case has been made of substantially identical processes wherein the step sizes taught by deCastro coincide with each other and the silver aggregates located in an annular peripheral zone around the irradiation point generate a variation of optical refractive index. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that an annular peripheral zone of an irradiation point that coincides with another annular peripheral zone of another irradiation point would inherently erase a variation of optical refractive index. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches the variation of refractive index is a positive variation of at least greater than 10^-3 (p. 54-55 “3.3 Demonstration of laser-creation of optical waveguides”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches the glass is moved in translation in a direction so as to form a line of passage of the beam formed according to a set or irradiation points, the distance between two irradiation point being substantially equal to half the diameter of the laser beam (p. 52 “2.2 Femtosecond laser inscription procedure and laser-induced structures”; 1.6 μm beam diameter and 0.5-1 μm interdistance) such that the passage of the laser beam forms two planes of variation of refractive index on either side of the line of passage of the beam (Fig. 5a/b).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 3, deCastro teaches the glass is moved so as to form a succession of lines of passage of the beam, the distance between two lines of passage of the beam being less than the diameter of the laser beam such that the succession of passages of laser beam form a grating of planes of variation of refractive index that are parallel to the line of passage of the laser beam (p. 52 “2.2 Femtosecond laser inscription procedure and laser-induced structures”; 1.6 μm beam diameter and 0.5-1 μm interdistance; Fig. 6). Though deCastro does not expressly state the glass is moved in another direction, de Castro teaches that the 3D translation stage moves “back-and-forth” reading on “another direction” (p. 52 ¶ “By using back-and-forth…”).
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches the repetition rate is greater than 10 kHz (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”; 9.8 MHz).
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches of using the pulse duration of the laser beam between 100 femtoseconds and 0.5 picoseconds (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”; 390 femtoseconds).
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches of using 9-13.5 TW/cm^2 irradiance (p. 52 ¶ “By using back-and-forth…”). Petit teaches that they experimented with 8 TW/cm^2 irradiance wherein the pulse absorbed is less than 0.5% (p. 299 left column). It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Petit further teaches that the repetition rate of the pulse is a cause-effective variable of the irradiance (p. 299 left column). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the optimum irradiance range, a result effective variable, and modifying the pule duration and pulse repetition rate without materially damaging the glass and allow sufficient heat dissipation involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches of using a 1030 nm wavelength laser beam (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches the glass is moved with respect to the laser beam at a speed between 50-1000 μm/s (p. 52 ¶ “By using back-and-forth…”; 10, 50, and 100 μm/s; Fig. 5 is described to be produced at 300 μm/s).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches the laser is focused at a depth of 160 μm (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”) which would yield a structure at that depth which is a plane of variation of refractive index (as described by p. 54-55 “3.3 Demonstration of laser-creation of optical waveguides”).
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches of 46.2NaPO3-25.6MgF2-15.4CdF2-10.2YF3-2.6Ag2O (Table 1) wherein under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Cd and Y compounds are interpreted as dopants supplementing the composition of the formula (I) to reach 100% in weight.
Regarding claim 16, depending from claim 15, under broadest reasonable interpretation the composition of 46.2NaPO3-25.6MgF2-15.4CdF2-10.2YF3-2.6Ag2O teaches of Ag2O which would yield an Ag+ metallic ion.
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches the transparent glass absorbs less than 10% of light in the wavelength greater than 400 nm (Fig. 1b). A skilled artisan would understand that transmission is substantially equivalent to (100%-absorption%), reading on the instantly claimed range. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 18, depending rom claim 1, deCastro teaches the laser beam emits at 1030 nm (p. 52 ¶ “For DLW inscription…”).
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 1, deCastro teaches their method produces structure of 6 μm though there should be a hypothetical thickness of 200 nm (p. 53-54 linking paragraph). Petit teaches of their similar method to produce a structure on a plane (Fig. 10c) to have a positive topology of 36.4 ± 7 nm and the groove depth is −22.9 ± 13.2 nm (p. 303 ¶ “The combination of DLW and chemical etching) wherein the structure of variated refractive index has a plane thickness of approximately 60 ± 20 nm which is proximate to the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deCastro et al (May 2019, “Femtosecond laser micro-patterning of optical properties and functionalities in novel photosensitive silver-containing fluorophosphate glasses”) and Petit et al (2018, “On the femtosecond laser-induced photochemistry in silver-containing oxide glasses: mechanisms, related optical and physico-chemical properties, and technological applications”) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Kurobori et al (2017, “Two-photon excited microscale colour centre patterns in Ag-activated phosphate glass written using a focused proton beam”) .
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 10, deCastro teaches of overlapping structures (Fig. 6). Petit teaches that the method be applied in grating applications (p. 301 ¶ “Multi-dimensional…”) and more complex 3D structures (p. 303-304 “4.3 Multi-scale material structuring: from 2D to 3D”). DeCastro and Petit do not expressly teach a periodic structure comprising a plurality of planes. In related beam processing of silver containing glass art, Kurobori teaches of making 3D patterns on silver containing glass using femtosecond laser pulses (p. 1 ¶ “In this work…”) wherein a plurality of planes were made with a pitch of 0.42 μm (p. 3 ¶ “In addition…”) to form a periodic structure in the bulk (Fig. 2). Though Kurobori does not expressly state a refractive index variation or a bulk Bragg grating, Kurobori teaches the method is applied in making gratings (p. 1 ¶ “Micromachining techniques…”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the refractive index variation taught by deCastro be used in a periodic structure comprising a plurality of plane of said structure to form a bulk Bragg grating with a grating pitch that falls within the claimed range is a known technique of the skilled micromachining artisan using silver-containing glass for their medium.
Claim 13, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deCastro et al (May 2019, “Femtosecond laser micro-patterning of optical properties and functionalities in novel photosensitive silver-containing fluorophosphate glasses”) and Petit et al (2018, “On the femtosecond laser-induced photochemistry in silver-containing oxide glasses: mechanisms, related optical and physico-chemical properties, and technological applications”) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Guerineau et al (2018, “Structural influence on the femtosecond laser ability to create fluorescent patterns in silver-containing sodium-gallium phosphate glasses”).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 12, deCastro teaches of using 40P2O5-55ZnO-1Ga2O3-4Ag2O. The composition does not fall within the narrower range of claim 13. In the same field of endeavor, Guerineau teaches of femtosecond laser writing Mol% 98[(Na2O)x + (74P2O5 + 26Ga2O3)100-x] + 2Ag2O with x = 15, 26, 35, 42, 47 and 51 Mol% composition glass wherein x = 51 falls within the instantly claimed range. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention use a known compatible glass composition for femtosecond laser writing silver containing glass.
Regarding claim 22, depending from claim 13, deCastro teaches of 46.2NaPO3-25.6MgF2-15.4CdF2-10.2YF3-2.6Ag2O (Table 1) wherein under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Cd and Y compounds are interpreted as dopants supplementing the composition to reach 100% in weight. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the composition of modified deCastro (claim 13) can be modified to include additional dopants such as Cd and Y and remain compatible to the relevant femtosecond laser writing method used on silver-containing glass.
Regarding claims 20, depending from claim 12, deCastro teaches of using 40P2O5-55ZnO-1Ga2O3-4Ag2O. DeCastro does not teach a composition range that encompasses the nominal composition as instantly claimed. In the same field of endeavor, Guerineau teaches of femtosecond laser writing of P2O5 Ga2O3 Na2O based glasses with 2 mol% Ag2O wherein a ternary diagram is shown (Fig. 1, Table 1). Based on the reported ranges of Table 1 and the accompanying Figure, Guerineau effectively teaches of a composition range that encompasses the instantly claimed composition. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention use a known compatible glass composition for femtosecond laser writing silver containing glass. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.") wherein the Courts upheld the use of a ternary diagram to teach a close range.
Claim 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deCastro et al (May 2019, “Femtosecond laser micro-patterning of optical properties and functionalities in novel photosensitive silver-containing fluorophosphate glasses”) and Petit et al (2018, “On the femtosecond laser-induced photochemistry in silver-containing oxide glasses: mechanisms, related optical and physico-chemical properties, and technological applications”) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Kaite et al (JP-2738125-B2, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 12, deCastro teaches of using 40P2O5-55ZnO-1Ga2O3-4Ag2O. The composition does not fall within the narrower range of claim 14. In related using silver ions to vary refractive index of glass art, Kaite teaches of a glass composition that overlaps the instantly claimed range (between p. 4-5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention use a known glass composition with silver oxide content that varies refractive index as a function of silver activation and it would be obvious to try the known glass with the femtosecond laser method of deCastro because of the refractive index changing properties.
Regarding claim 23, depending from claim 14, deCastro teaches of 46.2NaPO3-25.6MgF2-15.4CdF2-10.2YF3-2.6Ag2O (Table 1) wherein under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Cd and Y compounds are interpreted as dopants supplementing the composition to reach 100% in weight. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the composition of modified deCastro (claim 13) can be modified to include additional dopants such as Cd and Y and remain compatible to the relevant femtosecond laser writing method used on silver-containing glass.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 21, a primary reason why it is deemed novel and non-obvious over deCastro et al (May 2019) and further in view of Petit et al (2018) the prior art of record as instantly claimed is that the prior art does not teach laser writing of silver containing glass with the GeO2, Ga2O3/Al2O3/ZnO, and MgO/CaO/BaO content composition as instantly claimed. Wei et al (US-20200331791-A1) teaches silver doped 70 mol% germanium oxide and 30 mol% sodium oxide glass for high irradiation (reading on ionization) application but does not have the specified Ga2O3/Al2O3/ZnO and MgO/CaO/BaO nominal content as required by the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-6143382-A teaches treating silver in glass with a laser with material damage
US-20020046994-A1 teaches point-by-point laser treating silver containing glass
US-20020139769-A1 teaches laser processing a structure in glass containing silver, cerium, and antimony
US-6630644-B2 teaches laser induced damage in glass to produce a 3D portrait
WO-2015027818-A1 teaches a glass composition with 25% mol GeO2 and 1.7% mol AgNO3
Kassab 2016 teaches a germanate glass doped with Ag and Nd
Li 2013 teaches a Er and Ag doped germanate glass with fluorescence properties
Marshall 2008 teaches a bragg grating written by lasers in a phosphate glass with a pitch that falls within the instantly claimed range (no silver)
Skopak teaches BaO-Ga2O3-GeO2 (so-called BGG) glass but without silver or application thereof
JP-2000128575-A teaches a photo-writable glass composition comprising 30-69.9 mol% P2O5, 30-69.9 mol% MgO/CaO/SrO/BaO/ZnO content and 0.1-25 mol% Ag2O and no alkali oxide component
US-4191547-A, US-20090062102-A1 teaches a alkali-alumino-zinc-silicate glass composition comprising silver [ions] with photo-rewritable properties
DE-10309826-A1 teaches a phosphate glass composition without the MgO/CaO/BaO content and germanate requirement of claim 21, wherein the addition of cerium ions makes the glass property rewritable
US-2651145-A teaches alkali-alumino-zinc-alkaline silicate rewritable glass with silver aggregates
US-4297417-A teaches alkali-alumino-zinc silicate rewritable glass with silver aggregates
US-20130142021-A1 is Applicant’s own prior art that teaches of rewriting silver aggregates
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights