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
Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered into this application. Claims 18, 22 and 35 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/18/2023, has been accepted for examination.
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.
Claims 16-17, 19-21 and 23-34, 36-38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (2014/0204398 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Smith et al. (2017/0172693 A1) or Yelin et al. (2015/0011896 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 34, 36, and 39, Sato discloses a chromatic confocal measuring device is included in a light emitting device 101 (figs. 1-17) comprising:
a spectrometer is included in the optical device (figs. 1, 3 and 7) as an instrument used to separate and measure spectral components of a light emitting portion 3 and/or analyzes the properties of light or electromagnetic radiation by separating it into its constituent wavelengths or frequencies, allowing for identification and analysis of materials through their spectral signatures [pars. 0072];
an optical element a lens 29 exhibiting a dispersive behavior [pars. 0025]; and
a broadband light source a laser element/white light 24/203/205 [pars. 0252] configured to emit broadband/white light in a visible wavelength range up to a near infrared wavelength range, wherein the broadband light source includes
- a fiber or fiber bundle configured to guide the broadband light towards the optical element [par. 0004, 0214],
- a pump light source configured to emit pump light in a wavelength range from 350 nm to 500 nm [pars. 0246, 0253],
- a luminophore a light emitting portion 3 [pars. 0081, 0163-164] configured to convert the pump light into the broadband light, wherein the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 is located on a heat sink heat dissipation plate 7 that is non-movably arranged relative to the pump light source, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3) [pars. 0081, 0163-164],
- first optics a collimator lens 25 and a condensing lens 27 configured to image the pump light source onto the luminophore light emitting portion 3,
- second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 configured to image the luminophore the light emitting portion 3, is thereby coupling at least a portion of the broadband light, wherein a first beam path of the pump light from the pump light source (24a) to the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 and a second beam path of the broadband light from the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 onto the light receiving element (light receiving portion) 30 [par. 0114], and a beam splitter as a beam splitter (half mirror) 26 configured to out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3) [pars. 0112, 0129-132].
wherein the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 that is/are emitting (i.e. fluorescence) [pars. 0002 and 0081] is arranged at an axially displaced (i.e. is shifted, moved, distance away from each other normal position along its central longitudinal axis) position relative to a (condensing lens 27) focus of the pump light at the light emitting portion 3 that is/are emitting (i.e. fluorescence) [pars. 0002 and 0081], as can be seen depicted in drawing, such as (figs. 3, 4).
Even arguendo, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognized that the configuration of the “wherein the luminophore is arranged at an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light” as depicted by Applicant figure 1 and 2 is the same as the configuration described and depicted by structure of Sato (Sato, depicted drawing (figs. 3 and 4)), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
Furthermore, Sato teaches that the lens support member 8 is moved by the movement mechanism 44, …... to either movement in the horizontal direction or movement in the vertical direction [pars. 0154 and 0158-159], and movement in the vertical direction is obviously “wherein the luminophore is arranged at an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light” which is s focal position displaced is an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light.
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional change(s) of second optics configured to image the luminophore onto a facet of the fiber or fiber bundle, thereby coupling at least a portion of the broadband light into the fiber or fiber bundle, wherein a first beam path of the pump light from the pump light source to the luminophore and a second beam path of the broadband light from the luminophore onto the facet of the fiber or fiber bundle partially coincide, and Sato fail to teaches that the beam splitter is a dichroic type beam splitter configured to out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path.
Smith from the field of endeavor teaches of (i.e. second) optics (322) configured to received collimated and/or condense light beam onto a facet of the fiber or fiber bundle to out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path, thereby coupling at least a portion of the broadband light into the fiber 324 or fiber bundle, or out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path onto the facet of the fiber or fiber bundle partially coincide [pars. 0035-37], is known in the art in order to enable and enhance much faster speeds and lower signal loss.
Further, Smith also teaches of substituting a dichroic beam splitter for combination of beam splitter (26) and a fluorescence cutoff filter (optical function filter) 28 as taught by Sato (Sato, [pars. 0112, 0137-138], since the result and/or outcome is the same or identical, which is in part function as a way of selection of desired signal frequency/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device, as per teaching of Sato to substitute the combination to make the system compact with dichroic beam splitter. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato system as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 in view of Smith teaching and Sato suggestion in order to enable and enhance much faster speeds and lower signal loss and in order to accurately select desired signal/frequency/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato system as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 in view of Smith teaching and Sato suggestion in order to enable and enhance much faster speeds and lower signal loss and in order to accurately select desired signal/frequency/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Furthermore, in the alternative, if the Applicant argues that the structure of Sato fail to explicitly specify "a spectrometer" as a part of the claimed chromatic confocal measuring device then in view of Yelin from the same field of endeavor teaches of spectrometer included in the system as instrument used to separate and measure spectral components of a light emitting portion 3 and/or analyzes the properties of light or electromagnetic radiation by separating it into its constituent wavelengths or frequencies, allowing for identification and analysis of materials through their spectral signatures, is known in the art Yelin (Yelin, [pars. 0128, 0140, 0226] in order to accurately measure for a distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in the emitted light or any combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato system as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 in view of Yelin teaching in order to enable and enhance accurately measure for a distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in the emitted light or any combination thereof to determine the distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device, as per teaching of Sato, (Sato, [pars. 0112, 0137-138]), since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
For the purpose of clarity, the structure recited in claims 34, 36 and 39 is/are symmetrical to the structure recited in claim 16, as such, claims 34, and 36 are rejected above as being unpatentable over Sato.
In addition, regarding claim 39, when a claim takes the form “A or B”, a prior art reference teaching only A is anticipatory, as is a prior art reference teaching only B: that’s what the “or” means, that you are setting forth alternatives. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001), see MPEP 2131.
As to claim 17, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato discloses wherein the first optics lens 25 and condensing lens 27 and the second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 comprise at least one common imaging optical element condensing lens 27, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3).
As to claim 30, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato also discloses a structure that is use in a measuring device/system that is implementing limitations such as, comprising means for speckle reduction is using a white light that is a wider bandwidth source [pars. 0252, 0292, 0390-391].
For the purpose of clarity, Applicant disclosure as published [par. 0034], using of (i.e. a wider bandwidth …source……) is a speckle reduction technique(s).
As to claim 38, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato also discloses, wherein the luminophore comprises a plurality of luminophore layers that are layered on top of each other [pars. 0001-5].
As to claim 19-21, 23 and 24, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato teaches of wherein the first optics lens 25 and condensing lens 27 and the second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 comprise at least one common imaging optical element condensing lens 27, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3), Sato further teaches as illustrated in FIG. 7, the light emitting device 105 includes a laser element 2, a condensing lens 71, an optical fiber 72, a ferrule (optical member) 73 [pars. 0213-216], a light emitting portion 3, as applied to claim 16.
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 19-21, 23 and 24, such as, wherein an image of an area, which is illuminated on the luminophore by the pump light, formed on the facet of the fiber bundle or fiber is smaller than a lateral extent of the facet (claim 19); further comprising a further optical element arranged in a light path in front of the dichroic mirror and configured to introduce spherical aberrations (claim 20); further comprising a further optical element arranged in a light path behind the dichroic mirror and configured to introduce spherical aberrations (claim 21); further comprising a plurality of pump sources configured to illuminate non-overlapping or only partially overlapping areas on the luminophore (claim 23); and further comprising at least one splitting optical element that is configured to split the pump light into a plurality of pump light beam paths that illuminate non-overlapping or only partially overlapping areas on the luminophore (claim 24).
However, even though, Sato fail to teach the slight constructional change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 19-21, 23 and 24, the constructional/structural change differences are considered obvious design variation and routine in the art, and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 19-21, 23 and 24, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 25-29, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato teaches of fibers transmitting light emitted toward the light emitting portion 3, fibers receiving light emitted by the light emitting portion 3, laser light emitted from the laser element 24c passes through the collimator lens 25c and is incident on the beam splitter 26cand a beam splitter (half mirror) 26c [pars. 0214-217].
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 25-29, such as, wherein a fiber bundle comprises a plurality of individual fibers and guides the broadband light towards the optical element, and wherein ends of the plurality of individual fibers on a side opposite to the facet are arranged in a first pattern that is imaged by the optical element on an object to be measured for simultaneously measuring distances or thicknesses at a plurality of locations that are arranged in a second pattern that corresponds to the first pattern (claim 25); wherein the first pattern is a line (claim 26); wherein a single multi-mode fiber guides the broadband light towards the optical element, and wherein the device comprises a splitting device configured to split the broadband light, after exiting the multi-mode fiber, into a line or a plurality of discrete points for simultaneously measuring distances or thicknesses at a plurality of locations on an object to be measured (claim 27); wherein a single fiber guides the broadband light towards the optical element so that a distance of a thickness is measured on an object to be measured at a single location, and wherein the single fiber has a diameter smaller than 300 pm (claim 28); and further comprising a beam splitter cube that is configured to direct the broadband light guided in the fiber or fiber bundle towards the optical element, and that is configured to direct light that has been reflected or backscattered by an object to be measured towards the spectrometer (claim 29).
However, even though, Sato fail to teach the slight constructional change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 25-29, the constructional/structural change differences are considered obvious design variation and routine in the art, and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 25-29, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954). In this case, it would have been at least it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 25-29, in order to optimize the system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 31-33 and 37-38, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato teaches of wherein the first optics lens 25 and condensing lens 27 and the second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 comprise at least one common imaging optical element condensing lens 27, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3), Sato further teaches as illustrated in FIG. 7, the light emitting device 105 includes a laser element 2, a condensing lens 71, an optical fiber 72, a ferrule (optical member) 73 [pars. 0213-216], a light emitting portion 3, means for speckle reduction is using a white light that is a wider bandwidth source [pars. 0252, 0292, 0390-391], and a luminophore a light emitting portion 3 [pars. 0081, 0163-164] configured to convert the pump light into the broadband light, wherein the luminophore is located on a heat sink heat dissipation plate 7 that is non-movably arranged relative to the pump light source, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3) [pars. 0081, 0163-164], as applied to claim 16.
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 31-33, such as, wherein the means for speckle reduction comprises a reduction of a coherence magnitude by introducing a frequency modulation or a phase modulation at the pump source (claim 31); wherein the frequency modulation or the phase modulation is achieved by varying an ambient temperature or a diode current (claim 32) a cylinder lens configured to correct an astigmatism present at the pump light source (claim 33); wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of cooling ribs (claim 37); and wherein the luminophore comprises a plurality of luminophore layers that are layered on top of each other (claim 38).
However, even though, Sato fail to teach the slight constructional change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 31-33 and 37-38, the constructional/structural change differences are considered obvious design variation and routine in the art, in order to optimize the working function of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 31-33 and 37-38 in order to optimize the working condition the device/system, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, see pages 10-14, filed on 06/12/2026, with respect to the objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s arguments/remarks, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the amended independent claim(s) by applicant’s own account are similar to previously rejected claim 22.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues starting on page 11, par. 2 to par. 3, that As amended, each independent claim now recites the limitations of canceled claim 22, with pertains to defocusing the light on the luminophore. The Office action acknowledges that Sato does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 22 and further does not rely on any other specific prior art reference as teaching the limitations of claim 22. …………. …………………………and therefore would have been obvious.
Applicant argues that Claim 22 (and now claims 16, 34, 36, and 39) recited that "the luminophore is arranged at an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light." In contrast to the statement in the Office action, the change according to canceled claim 22 provides a significant and non-obvious functional change or improvement. ……………… ………………………………………………………… …………………… This effect, which follows the rationale described at paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of the U.S. publication 2024/0167808 of the instant application, has not been taught or suggested in Sato, Smith, or Yelin.
Applicant argues that In view of the foregoing, the amendments to claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 are not mere obvious design variations. Further, Sato, Smith, and Yelin, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least the above-discussed limitations of claims 16, 34, 36, and 39. As a result, claims 16, 34, 36, and 39, and corresponding dependent claims 17, 19-21, 23-33, 37, and 38 are not rendered obvious by the cited reference combination.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because it is well settled that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In this case, by applicant's own account the rejection was made as 103 not 102 and the examiner did recognize that the limitation(s) “the luminophore is arranged at an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light." is obviously taught by Sato, Sato structural configuration as depicted (Sato, depicted drawing (figs. 3 and 4)) depicted the same arrangement configuration as the configuration described and depicted by the structure of the instant application drawing (line from 3-6 as same as Sato 26-7 fig. 3) and claimed by the amended independent claims limitation(s). As such, a prima facie case of obviousness is established, and it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive because Sato teaches that the lens support member 8 is moved by the movement mechanism 44, …... to either movement in the horizontal direction or movement in the vertical direction [pars. 0154 and 0158-159], and movement in the vertical direction is obviously “wherein the luminophore is arranged at an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light” which is focal position is displaced, and is an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light. The result of the displacement provides a significant and functional change or improvement enhancement in the focus adjustment (Sato, Sato, [pars. 0158-159]).
In conclusion, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive because the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As such, rejections are proper, and the argument/remarks for request for reconsideration does not appear to place the application in condition for allowance.
b) Applicant argues starting on page 12, par. 1 to page 13, par. 2, that ……, while the additional features from claim 22 are believed to further distinguish claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 from the cited art, the independent claims, without the features of claim 22, are not obvious over the cited prior art.
Applicant argues that First, none of the cited references are from the technical field of the applicant's invention. …………………………………….. teachings with another reference from a non-analogous field is improper. …………………. ………..
Applicant argues that Second, the Office action acknowledges that Sato lacks any teaching or suggestion regarding three features of the applicant's invention. These features include i) a spectrometer, ii) second optics configured to image a luminophore onto a facet of a fiber or fiber bundle, and iii) a dichroic beam splitter configured to out-couple a second beam path from a first beam path. These are fairly important features of the applicant's claimed devices.
…………………………………………………………………………………… Modifying Sato according to Smith would at most replace the filter in Sato, not the beam splitter, with the dichroic mirror of Smith. Anything more would amount to improper hindsight reconstruction of the reference teachings using the applicant's claims as a template.
Applicant argues that Third, the Office action relies on Yelin for teaching use of a spectrometer. However, it is quite unclear how the spectrometer of Yelin, based on the teachings of the references themselves, would be incorporated into Sato's device, much less what the spectrometer's function would be in the Sato device……… ………………………………………………………………….Further, the reasoning put forth in the Office action that replacing Sato's cutoff filter with the spectrometer of Smith would "enable and enhance accurately measure [sic] for a distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in the emitted light or any combination thereof to determine the distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device" finds no basis in anywhere, much less within the cited references. For these reasons, the reference combination is improper. The claims as previously presented, and thus also as amended herein, are not rendered obvious by any combination of Sato, Smith, and Yelin for at least these additional reasons. The obviousness rejection is believed to be overcome.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to argument (a), applicant argument (b) is/are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that it is well settled that, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is reminded that, during examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the instant application claims and, cited references are reasonably concerned with illumination devices which the instant applicant is involved, as such, the cited references are considered as an analogous art. Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the examiner did recognize that the limitation(s) are obvious in view of the various cited reference(s) and used these various cited reference(s) to find this/these limitation(s) as being obvious.
In conclusion, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and/or at the time the invention was made would have fairly and reasonably recognized that the prior art does properly support a rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. As such, the rejections are proper, and the argument/remarks for request for reconsideration does not appear to place the application in condition for allowance.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art chromatic confocal measuring device.
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights