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 March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s traverse of the objection to the drawings is not persuasive. The Examiner identified prior art containing the drawing in the previous action. Since the drawings noted illustrate “that which is old”, the objection is maintained.
Applicant’s traverse of the interpretation of claim terms under 35 USC 112(f) is not persuasive. The remarks at pages 10-14 traversing the interpretation of “first positioning device”, “second positioning device”, and “controller” do not obviate the fact that the terms in the claims recite non-phrases with inadequate structure to carry out their claimed functions. The amendment does not render the interpretation moot as alleged. Merely adding additional functions does not alter the adequacy of the claimed “controller” to perform the claimed functions.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of claims, the Applicant’s traversal at page 20 with respect to the term “controller”, the term, if indeed a computer implemented element, is interpreted in view of MPEP 2181(II)(b). As noted in the rejection, there is no apparent disclosed algorithm for causing the apparatus including the controller to produce such a computer implemented function. This is required in MPEP 2181(II)(B).1 No where in the remarks is it pointed out where the algorithms for causing the claimed controller to perform such functions. Nor do the remarks resolve the ambiguity as to what controller is in fact being claimed. Therefore, the rejection(s) for indefiniteness of claims containing the term “controller” are maintained.
Applicant’s traverse of the rejection of claim 4 for being an improper Markush group is not persuasive. Review of MPEP 2117 would indicate that such a group is merely a list of alternately useable members and not restricted to one field of invention. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 overcomes the indefiniteness rejection based on the previously tendered language defining a particle beam. Having been changed to recite a charged particle beam apparatus, the claim is now clear.
Since Applicant’s remarks and traverse of the interpretation of claim terms under 35 USC 112(f) and the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) are not persuasive, similarly and in view of MPEP 2163.03(VI), the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) is maintained.
Applicant’s traverse of the enablement rejection of claims 5-6 is persuasive.
Applicant’s traverse of the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102(a) is not persuasive. As noted in the claim interpretation portion previously noted, reciting a wherein clause which relies on a condition that is not met by the claim does not impose a requirement on the claim. Note MPEP 2111.04(II) and the discussion of contingent limitations. The structure of the prior art includes a controller which controls a retarder and thereby the landing energy of a beam. Each different setting being equivalent to the claimed “modes”, since mode is merely a manner of operating or performing. Note [0042-0048]. The prior art possesses all the required structure of the claimed invention as pointed out.
Any alteration to the prior rejection(s) made of record are necessitated by amendment.
The objection to the drawings is made final.
The rejections restated below are made final.
Drawings
Figure 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4 of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0341224
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First positioning device in claim 1. This term is not described in the specification. A single positioning device 180 [0018-0022] is described.
Second positioning device in claim 1. This term is not described in the specification. A single positioning device 180 [0018-0022] is described.
Controller in claim 1. This term is not employed alone. Rather, the disclosure mentions several different controllers at [0027]. “As illustrated, these various components of the EBI apparatus may be equipped with respective controllers, i.e. , an object transfer system controller 310 connected to the object transfer system 130, a load/lock controller 315, a stage controller 320, a detector controller 320 (for control of detector 244) and an electron optics (EO) controller 325. These controllers may e.g. be communicatively connected to a system controller computer 335 and an image processing computer 340, e.g. via a communication bus 345. In the embodiment as shown, the system controller computer 335 and the image processing computer 340 may be connected to a workstation 350. “ The controller term is interpreted as a generic computer, but it is unclear which element performs the switching function.
Fine positioning device in claim 3. This element appears to correspond to the fine positioner corresponding to a fine z stage at [0045-0048]. There does not appear to be an explicit description of the structure of the fine z stage, and thus the fine positioning device.
Coarse positioning device in claim 3. The term “coarse positioning device” is not explicitly described in the written description. The closest term is coarse positioner or coarse z substrate stage described at [0045-0048]. No particular structure is described for the coarse z stage.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 includes limitations which appear to be conditional wherein clauses. Claim 1 recites:
“wherein, when operating in the first operational mode, the second positioning device is configured to position the substrate relative to the particle beam generator at a first focus position of the particle beam,
and wherein, when operating in the second operational mode, the second positioning device is configured to position the substrate relative to the particle beam generator at a second focus position of the particle beam, the second focus position being at a distance from the first focus position, the distance being larger than the first range of movement.”
Note that each of these clauses are contingent on when the apparatus in caused to be in each of different first and second operational modes. There is no requirement in the claim that the apparatus be placed into either of these modes. Rather, only included is a “controller configured for switching”. Since the claim does not require the apparatus be in either mode these contingent limitations are not given patentable weight in defining the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of cam-shaft mechanism, bellow actuator, piezo stack, piezoelectric finger, reluctance actuator, spindle, ball-screw mechanism, and lever mechanism is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: While the elements of the group share a common use, the disparate elements lack a structural similarity. For example, the piezoelectric finger or piezo stack is structurally dissimilar from the ball-screw mechanism.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim limitation “charged particle apparatus” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “charged particle apparatus” is recited in the body of the claim coupled to functional language “being configured, when operating in the first operational mode, for irradiating the substrate by the particle beam at a first landing energy of the particle beam, and the apparatus being further configured, when operating in the second operational mode, for irradiating the substrate with the particle beam at a second landing energy of the particle beam, the second landing energy being different from the first landing energy”. This does not appear to be proper functional claiming under 35 SC 112(f) which states, an element in a claim to a combination may be claimed functionally, as noted above. However, in this case, the charged particle apparatus term appears to reference the preamble which is the combination itself. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitation “controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The term controller is recited as performing the function of switching between first and second operational modes.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is not clear which of the disclosed controllers is the claimed controller.
If this claimed controller is a generic computation device, there is no corresponding disclosed algorithm in the disclosure for carrying out the switching function from a first operation mode to a second operation mode or back.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-15 recite terms in means plus function form which are rejected above under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite for failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for carrying out the function. Therefore, in view of MPEP 2163.03(VI), claims 1-15 are similarly rejected under this heading.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2019/0341224 Published 11/7/2019, more than 1 year prior to the earliest priority date in the instant application 12/30/2020.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claims 1 and 15,
a charged particle apparatus comprising: -
PNG
media_image2.png
442
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a particle beam generator configured for generating a particle beam to be irradiated onto a substrate;-
PNG
media_image3.png
598
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
optics configured for focusing the particle beam; -
PNG
media_image3.png
598
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a first positioning device configured for positioning the substrate relative to the particle beam generator along an optical axis of the particle beam generator over a first range of movement; -
PNG
media_image4.png
598
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a second positioning device configured for positioning the substrate relative to the particle beam generator along the optical axis; and-
PNG
media_image4.png
598
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
308
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a controller configured for switching between a first operational mode and a second operational mode of the apparatus,
PNG
media_image6.png
604
614
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the apparatus being configured, when operating in the first operational mode, for irradiating the substrate by the particle beam at a first landing energy of the particle beam, and the apparatus being further configured, when operating in the second operational mode, for irradiating the substrate with the particle beam at a second landing energy of the particle beam, the second landing energy being different from the first landing energy;
The operation modes above correspond to the different landing energies produced by variation of the energization of the beam retarding means applied by the controller [0042-0048]. Each variable landing energy selectable by the controller corresponds to one of a plurality of “modes”.
wherein, when operating in the first operational mode, the second positioning device is configured to position the substrate relative to the particle beam generator at a first focus position of the particle beam, and
wherein, when operating in the second operational mode, the second positioning device is configured to position the substrate relative to the particle beam generator at a second focus position of the particle beam, the second focus position being at a distance from the first focus position, the distance being larger than the first range of movement.
As noted above, the apparatus configured to language renders the claim indefinite while the conditional wherein when limitations are conditional and do not impose a structural feature on the apparatus.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 2. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 1,further comprising:-
a chamber configured to at least partially support the particle beam generator, the substrate being arranged inside the chamber;
PNG
media_image7.png
440
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the second positioning device is arranged inside the chamber and is configured to position the substrate with respect to the particle beam generator along the optical axis by moving the first positioning device.
PNG
media_image8.png
440
568
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Arrow indicates sample moved by means 511 inside chamber.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 3.
The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first positioning device comprises a fine positioning device and the second positioning device comprises a coarse positioning device,
PNG
media_image5.png
308
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the fine positioning device is configured for positioning the substrate with a higher accuracy than the coarse positioning device.
PNG
media_image5.png
308
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 7. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second positioning device is configured to position the substrate to one of a plurality of fixed positions. The positioning means, such as 511 may position at, for example, the greatest and least extent of actuation, thereby providing positioning at 2 fixed extent positions.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 8. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of fixed positions comprises a limited number of positions. The positioning means, such as 511 may position at, for example, the greatest and least extent of actuation, thereby providing positioning at 2 fixed extent positions.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 9. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the limited number of positions is larger than 1. The positioning means, such as 511 may position at, for example, the greatest and least extent of actuation, thereby providing positioning at 2 fixed extent positions.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 10. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the limited number of positions is 2. The positioning means, such as 511 may position at, for example, the greatest and least extent of actuation, thereby providing positioning at 2 fixed extent positions.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 12. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 11, further comprising a chamber configured to at least partially support the particle beam generator, the substrate being arranged inside the chamber; wherein the second positioning device is arranged on the chamber or is arranged on the chamber via an air mount.
PNG
media_image9.png
368
570
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Substrate 520 is inside the chamber. Positioning means 511 is arranged on the chamber via support at the interface indicated by the red arrow.
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 13. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the particle beam comprises an electron beam, the particle beam generator comprises an electron beam generator, and the optics comprises an electron optics system.
PNG
media_image10.png
106
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
420
476
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding the disclosure of ‘224 as applied to claim 15. The charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 1, wherein particle beam comprises an electron beam apparatus, a scanning electron microscope, an electron beam direct writer, an electron beam projection lithography apparatus, an electron beam inspection apparatus, an electron beam defect verification apparatus, an electron beam metrology apparatus, a lithographic apparatus, or a metrology apparatus.
PNG
media_image10.png
106
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
420
476
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 DAVID A VANORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 6 PM.
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, Georgia EPPS can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
DAVID A. VANORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID A VANORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
1 MPEP 2181(II)(B): For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008).