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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Okumura et al. does not disclose the limitation as amended in claims 1, 20-21. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses an actuating device as claimed including a deformable moveable element (2) connected to the actuator arm, wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element (see at least paragraph 0050); wherein the deformable moveable element comprises an optically reflective surface or a lens (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material; see at least paragraph 0048). Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 12, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging. The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens and wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. as modified by Arakawa teaches the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species (the species as shown in figure 9). Therefore, claims 1-3, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 23-25 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “a deformable moveable element connected to the actuator arm, wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves of the moveable element.” The examiner suggests amending the language to recite " a deformable moveable element connected to the actuator arm, wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element” for the sake of clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 11, 18, 16-17, 20-21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (US 2002/0118910) in view of Arakawa (CN 104049358).
Regarding claim 1, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses an actuating device comprising:
at least one actuator arm (3, 3a-3d) comprising a piezoelectric membrane (see at least paragraph 0048); and
a deformable moveable element (2) connected to the actuator arm, wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element (see at least paragraph 0050);
wherein the deformable moveable element comprises an optically reflective surface or a lens (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material; see at least paragraph 0048).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding the actuator arm having a width at least ten times its thickness. Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses the actuator arm having a width at least ten times its thickness (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material with thickness of 15 .mu.m and the diameter of the mirror 2 is 500 .mu.m and the width of the supporting member 3 is 300 .mu.m; see at least paragraph 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness and the width of the actuator arm as taught by Okumura et al. in order to maintain the plane surface of the mirror and obtain stable change of the light path so that a highly efficient light deflector is provided.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens. Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 12, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging.
The limitation, “wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens and wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. as modified by Arakawa teaches the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses wherein the actuator arm comprises a plurality of independently addressable piezoelectric segments (3, 3a-3d; see at least paragraphs 0041-0044).
Regarding claim 3, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses a gap between at least part of the actuator arm and the moveable element (the gap between 3, 3a-3d and 6 as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses wherein the moveable element comprises an optically reflective surface (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material; see at least paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 11, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses wherein the or each actuator arm has a constant width along its length (2; figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 14 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding wherein the deformable moveable element comprises a first individually addressable piezoelectric section and a second individually addressable piezoelectric section, and wherein the first section is circular and the second section is an annulus surrounding the first section. Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches wherein the deformable moveable element comprises a first individually addressable piezoelectric section and a second individually addressable piezoelectric section, and wherein the first section is circular and the second section is an annulus surrounding the first section (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 12, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging.
Regarding claim 17, Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches wherein the deformable moveable element has an upper surface and a lower surface, and wherein both the upper surface and lower surface have an optically reflective surface (see at least page 13, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses wherein the membrane comprises a piezoelectric layer (see at least paragraph 0048) and a second layer (4).
Regarding claim 20, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses a system comprising:
an actuating device comprising:
at least one actuator arm (3, 3a-3d) comprising a piezoelectric membrane (see at least paragraph 0048); and
a deformable moveable element (2) connected to the actuator arm, wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element (see at least paragraph 0050);
wherein the deformable moveable element comprises an optically reflective surface or a lens (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material; see at least paragraph 0048).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 20 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding the actuator arm having a width at least ten times its thickness. Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses the actuator arm having a width at least ten times its thickness (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material with thickness of 15 .mu.m and the diameter of the mirror 2 is 500 .mu.m and the width of the supporting member 3 is 300 .mu.m; see at least paragraph 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness and the width of the actuator arm as taught by Okumura et al. in order to maintain the plane surface of the mirror and obtain stable change of the light path so that a highly efficient light deflector is provided.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens. Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 12, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging.
The limitation, “wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens and wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. as modified by Arakawa teaches the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 21, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses a system comprising:
an actuating device comprising:
at least one actuator arm (3, 3a-3d) comprising a piezoelectric membrane (see at least paragraph 0048); and
a deformable moveable element (2) connected to the actuator arm, wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element (see at least paragraph 0050);
wherein the deformable moveable element comprises an optically reflective surface or a lens (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material; see at least paragraph 0048).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding the actuator arm having a width at least ten times its thickness. Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses the actuator arm having a width at least ten times its thickness (the mirror 2 made of poly-silicon material with thickness of 15 .mu.m and the diameter of the mirror 2 is 500 .mu.m and the width of the supporting member 3 is 300 .mu.m; see at least paragraph 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness and the width of the actuator arm as taught by Okumura et al. in order to maintain the plane surface of the mirror and obtain stable change of the light path so that a highly efficient light deflector is provided.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens. Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of individually addressable piezoelectric sections; wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 12, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging.
The limitation, “wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections changes the shape of the optically reflective surface or lens and wherein such that actuation of the actuator arm moves the moveable element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. as modified by Arakawa teaches the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 23, Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections results in a curved deformation of the deformable moveable element. Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections results in a curved deformation of the deformable moveable element (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 19, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging.
The limitation, “wherein actuation of the individually addressable piezoelectric sections results in a curved deformation of the deformable moveable element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 24, Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 23 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding wherein the curved deformation is convex. Akarawa (figures 1-4) teaches wherein the curved deformation is convex (521, 522, 561, 562, 553; see at least page 19, the last 5 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating device as taught by Arakawa in order to provide substrate to keep high-air-tightness each other and the interference filter engaging.
The limitation, “wherein the curved deformation is convex” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 25, Okumura et al. (figures 1-17) discloses wherein the deformable moveable element is arranged to tilt about two orthogonal axes (figures 5a-5d).
The limitation, “wherein the deformable moveable element is arranged to tilt about two orthogonal axes” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Okumura et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. Akarawa; further in view of Kuisma (US 2016/0004070).
Regarding claim 12, Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding wherein the or each actuator arm is connected to the moveable element via a connecting member having a thickness greater than the thickness of the or each actuator arm. Kuisma (figures 1-4) discloses wherein the or each actuator arm is connected to the moveable element via a connecting member having a thickness greater than the thickness of the or each actuator arm (23, 27 and 29a-29b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator arm as taught by Kuisma in order to provide a micro-optical electromechanical device structure that in a given component area dimension provides a large single movable mirror surface and large tilt angles for said mirror surface.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. in view of Akarawa; further in view of Shani et al. (WO 2019/106429).
Regarding claim 13, Okumura et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Okumura et al. is silent regarding wherein the mass per unit area of the moveable element is greater than that of the actuator arm(s). Shani et al. (figures 11A-11D) teaches wherein the mass per unit area of the moveable element is greater than that of the actuator arm(s) (see at least paragraphs 0165 and 0427). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator arm as taught by Shani et al. in order to provide an actuator device with structural strength while keeping its weight relatively low. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mass per unit area of the moveable element being greater than that of the actuator arm(s) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871