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 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is quoted below:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Goodman does not disclose, teach or suggest "a proof mass comprising . .. one or more etched apertures in the substrate, the one or more etched apertures positioned on the substrate to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass, wherein the one or more etched apertures are formed by selective laser etching."
Instead, Goodman describes a process for thinning hinge regions using a femtosecond laser to ablate material until a specific thickness is reached. The openings in Goodman are gaps between flexure arms used for hinge flexibility, not apertures strategically placed to align mass centers with geometric centers.”
In response to the argument above, examiner’s position was and remains the same in that Goodman teaches the claimed “one or more etched apertures in the substrate” as described at page 3 of the Non-Final Rejection of 11/21/2025 however Goodman does not explicitly teach regarding the one or more apertures positioned on the substrate “to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass”. Examiner further relied on the secondary reference of Dwyer to teach the aforementioned limitation.
In addition, Goodman teaches laser ablation for the fabrication process of the proof mass in general and does not limit the laser ablation fabrication process to only forming the gaps between flexure arms used for hinge flexibility as argued above. See Fig. 1 illustrating laser-based proof mass fabrication system used to form the proof mass 200 of Fig. 2A which includes multiple apertures in addition to the hinged part (see Col. 2, line 33 – Col. 3, line 35). Therefore, examiner believes that the invention is reasonably met with Goodman in view of Dwyer (see rejection below).
Applicant’s second argument is quoted below:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Dwyer fails to teach or suggest the claimed selective laser etching of the etched apertures. While Dwyer mentions configuring dimensions of a proof mass for alignment, it describes forming features by CO2 laser cutting or masking and chemical etching. Dwyer does not disclose or suggest "one or more etched apertures positioned on the substrate to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass, wherein the one or more etched apertures are formed by selective laser etching."”
In response to the argument above, examiner has relied on the primary reference of Goodman to teach the aperture forming process and did not rely on the secondary reference of Dwyer to teach the claimed “selective laser etching” of the etched apertures. Examiner relied on the secondary reference of Dwyer to teach the limitation of “one or more etched apertures positioned on the substrate to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass”, however relied on the laser ablation forming process which also uses femtosecond laser of Goodman to teach the remaining limitation (see response to the first argument above, see also rejection below).
Applicant’s third argument is quoted below:
“As described in paragraph [0035] of the Specification, the claimed "selective laser etching" refers to a specific process that modifies material for subsequent removal that is fundamentally different from Goodman's laser ablation process, which involves surface thinning and material removal at the focal spot. For example, unlike the laser ablation process in Goodman, the "selective laser etching" process recited in claim 1 may help enabling the formation of tunnel-shaped apertures between top and bottom surfaces while those surfaces remain continuous”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “"selective laser etching" process recited in claim 1 may help enabling the formation of tunnel-shaped apertures between top and bottom surfaces while those surfaces remain continuous”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). In this case, Goodman does teach general laser ablation process which uses femtosecond laser for forming the proof mass which reasonably reads on the invention as claimed. See rejection below.
Applicant’s fourth argument is quoted below:
“Furthermore, regarding the "integrated coils," the Office Action asserted that Goodman allegedly teaches coils formed by laser ablation. However, Goodman describes arcuate electrodes created by "metalizing" the surface.5
While Goodman uses laser ablation for thinning the quartz substrate, Goodman does not disclose or suggest that the one or more integrated coils are formed by laser ablation, as recited in claim 1.”
In response to the argument above, examiner relied on the primary reference of Goodman to teach the forming of the “integrated coils” by “laser ablation”. Even though Goodman does teach “metalizing” the surface, Goodman further describes final thinning of the PM accomplished by laser ablation to all of the proof mass areas shown in Fig. 2 (see Col. 4, lines 44 – 58). Therefore, examiner believes that the invention is reasonably met by Goodman in view of Dwyer (see rejection below).
Applicant’s fifth argument is quoted below:
“Regarding Claim 17, the Office Action asserted that Goodman teaches selective laser etching one or more isolated apertures within a proof mass.6 Specifically, the Office Action relied on Figure 2A of Goodman and column 3, lines 46-52, which describe openings or windows in a bifilar flexure.7
However, Goodman does not describe selective laser etching, much less selective laser etching one or more isolated apertures within a proof mass, as recited in claim 17. Paragraphs [0035-0036] of the Specification provide non-limiting example of "selective laser etching."
Furthermore, the Office Action asserted that Goodman allegedly teaches laser-ablated integrated coils. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Goodman teaches "metalizing" surfaces to form arcuate electrodes. Goodman does not teach the particular three-operation method of selective laser etching isolated apertures, sputtering metallic material, and then laser ablating the sputtered material to form integrated coil turns as recited in claim 17.”
In response to the argument above, please see responses of first – fourth argument above. See also rejection below.
Applicant’s sixth argument is quoted below:
“Goodman does not disclose or suggest any of the alleged openings or windows to be positioned between a top surface of the flapper or reed 210 and a bottom surface of the flapper or reed 210.
Therefore, the cited references do not disclose or suggest the one or more etched apertures are positioned between a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate, as is recited in claim 2. Applicant respectfully submits the cited references do not disclose or suggest the features recited in claim 10 and 18 for at least similar reasons as given above for claim 2.”
In response to the argument above, examiner believes that the openings formed on the proof mass of Goodman as illustrated at Fig. 2A – 2C, are formed on the substrate 210 and that the openings are between a top surface (i.e., the plane that extends at top portion as seen at Fig. 2A) and a bottom surface (i.e., the plane that extends on the bottom/opposite side of 210). Thus, reading on the invention as claimed.
Applicant’s seventh argument is quoted below:
“Claim 5 recites "wherein at least one of a location or size of the one or more etched apertures correspond to at least one of a width or a number of turns of the one or more integrated coils." Applicant respectfully submits that the assertion that claim 5 is a "mere change in size" is an oversimplification of claim 5.
Claim 5 recites correlating internal etched aperture geometry or location with specific integrated coil winding parameters (e.g. width or number of turns). Neither Goodman nor Dwyer suggests correlating internal aperture geometry with specific coil winding parameters. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify Goodman in view of Dwyer to correlate internal etched aperture geometry or location with specific integrated coil winding parameters, as the Office asserts.
Therefore, the cited references do not disclose, teach or suggest "wherein at least one of a location or size of the one or more etched apertures correspond to at least one of a width or a number of turns of the one or more integrated coils," as recited in claim 5.”
In response to the argument above, examiner’s rejection was based on obviousness type rejection with both mere change in size as well as rearranging parts both involving only routine skill in the art (see rejection below). Therefore, examiner believes that the invention is reasonably met by Goodman in view of Dwyer as rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 10, 12 – 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,335,897 B2 to Goodman (hereinafter “Goodman”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0115321 A1 to Dwyer et al. (hereinafter “Dwyer”).
Regarding Claim 1, Goodman teaches a proof mass (see abstract describing a system for producing a proof-mass assembly, see proof mass at 200, Fig. 2 and proof mass 1, Fig. 4, see Col. 3, lines 32 – 40, Col. 4, lines 52 – 58) comprising:
a substrate (see flapper or reed 210, Fig. 2A which can be considered as the substrate as claimed, see Col. 3, lines 32 – 52);
one or more etched apertures in the substrate (see arrangement at Fig. 2A which includes openings/windows, see Col. 3, lines 46 – 52, see also apertures formed on the surface 210, Figs. 2A, 2C, 4 including that of screw threading holes as described at Col. 3, lines 59 – 66), the one mor more etched apertures positioned on the substrate (see apertures formed on the surface 210, Figs. 2A, 2C, 4).
Even though Goodman teaches one or more apertures as described above and further Goodman teaches an operation of the proof mass which is always maintained in a balanced position as described at Col. 4, line 59 – Col. 5, line 4, Goodman is silent regarding the one or more apertures positioned on the substrate to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass.
Dwyer, in the field of accelerometers, teaches use of an accelerometer with one or more apertures to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass (see paragraph [0099] and claim 10 describing in some examples, the dimensions of the proof mass (i.e., which includes the apertures as illustrated at Figs. 1 – 3), are configured so that the center of mass of the proof mass is aligned with the geometric center of the proof mass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to proof mass configuration of Dwyer into Goodman, in order to allow the circuit of the accelerometers to be symmetrical. The modification further provides reduced cross-axis sensitivity, improves linearity and enhances overall reliability of the accelerometer.
Goodman in view of Dwyer as modified above further teaches;
one or more integrated coils (see Col. 3, lines 53 – 56, of Goodman describing arcuate electrodes formed on the upper and lower surface of the proof mass, see also Col. 4, lines 52 – 65 of Goodman describing feedback coil which allows the proof mass to move up and down when the feedback coil is energized),
wherein the one or more etched apertures are formed by selective laser etching (see forming of the proof mass described at Col. 1, line 48 – Col. 2, line 14, see Col. 3, lines 16 – 21 of Goodman describing use of laser ablation for the fabrication process of the proof mass, see also Fig. 3 of Goodman),
wherein the one or more integrated coils are formed by laser ablation (see Col. 3, lines 53 – 56 of Goodman describing the metalizing the surface of the proof mass to form the arcuate electrodes, see also Col. 4, lines 44 – 58 of Goodman describing final thinning of the PM accomplished by laser ablation to all of the PM areas shown in Fig. 2 except for the hinge areas and the cross hatched area 241, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Insofar as Goodman may be construed as not explicitly teaching “the one or more etched apertures are formed by selective laser etching”, Goodman does teach formation of a quartz proof mass assembly, having the apertures as seen at Figs. 2A, 2C, 4A, using laser ablation fabrication process instead of the conventional wet-etch technique (see Col. 1, lines 22 – 66), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the etched apertures of Goodman using the laser etching or laser ablation process as described by Goodman, since Goodman does teach the use of laser ablation to form the proof mass as described above. The modification provides highly controllable and reproducible process and further enables very thin surfaces to be ablated with minimal damage to the surface (see Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 14 of Goodman).
In addition, note that instant claim is a product-by-process claim as the claim is directed to a product (i.e., proof mass) but also includes process (i.e., “formed by” lines 5, 7) limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113(I)). “[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)
Regarding Claim 9, Goodman teaches a proof mass assembly (see abstract describing a system for producing a proof-mass assembly, see proof mass at 200, Fig. 2 and proof mass 1, Fig. 4, see Col. 3, lines 32 – 40, Col. 4, lines 52 – 58) comprising a substrate (see flapper or reed 210, Fig. 2A which can be considered as the substrate as claimed, see Col. 3, lines 32 – 52), the substrate comprising:
a proof mass (see flapper 210, Fig. 2 and/or proof mass 1, Fig. 4 formed on the substrate) having one or more etched apertures (see arrangement at Fig. 2A which includes openings/windows, see Col. 3, lines 46 – 52, see also apertures formed on the surface 210, Figs. 2A, 2C, 4 including that of screw threading holes as described at Col. 3, lines 59 – 66), the one mor more etched apertures positioned on the substrate (see apertures formed on the surface 210, Figs. 2A, 2C, 4).
Even though Goodman teaches one or more apertures as described above and further Goodman teaches an operation of the proof mass which is always maintained in a balanced position as described at Col. 4, line 59 – Col. 5, line 4, Goodman is silent regarding the one or more apertures positioned on the substrate to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass.
Dwyer, in the field of accelerometers, teaches use of an accelerometer with one or more apertures to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass (see paragraph [0099] and claim 10 describing in some examples, the dimensions of the proof mass (i.e., which includes the apertures as illustrated at Figs. 1 – 3), are configured so that the center of mass of the proof mass is aligned with the geometric center of the proof mass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to proof mass configuration of Dwyer into Goodman, in order to allow the circuit of the accelerometers to be symmetrical. The modification further provides reduced cross-axis sensitivity, improves linearity and enhances overall reliability of the accelerometer.
Goodman in view of Dwyer as modified above further teaches;
a proof mass support (see supporting ring 240, Fig. 2A, see Col. 3, lines 32 – 40 of Goodman); and
a flexure (see flexures 231, 232, and support hinges 6, Figs. 2A, 4A of Goodman respectively, see Col. 3, lines 32 – 40, Col. 4, lines 52 - 58 of Goodman) connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support (see arrangement at Figs. 2A, 4A of Goodman), wherein the proof mass is configured to rotate relative to the proof mass support via the flexure (see arrangement at Figs. 2A, 4A, Col. 3, lines 32 – 52, Col. 4, lines 52 – end of Goodman),
wherein the one or more etched apertures are formed by selective laser etching (see forming of the proof mass described at Col. 1, line 48 – Col. 2, line 14, see Col. 3, lines 16 – 21 of Goodman describing use of laser ablation for the fabrication process of the proof mass, see also Fig. 3 of Goodman).
Insofar as Goodman may be construed as not explicitly teaching “the one or more etched apertures are formed by selective laser etching”, Goodman does teach formation of a quartz proof mass assembly, having the apertures as seen at Figs. 2A, 2C, 4A, using laser ablation fabrication process instead of the conventional wet-etch technique (see Col. 1, lines 22 – 66), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the etched apertures of Goodman using the laser etching or laser ablation process as described by Goodman, since Goodman does teach the use of laser ablation to form the proof mass as described above. The modification provides highly controllable and reproducible process and further enables very thin surfaces to be ablated with minimal damage to the surface (see Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 14 of Goodman).
In addition, note that instant claim is a product-by-process claim as the claim is directed to a product (i.e., proof mass) but also includes process (i.e., “formed by” lines 5, 7) limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113(I)). “[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)
Regarding Claim 17, Goodman teaches a method (see abstract and Fig. 3), comprising:
selective laser etching one or more isolated apertures within a proof mass (see arrangement at Fig. 2A which includes openings/windows, see Col. 3, lines 46 – 52, see also apertures formed on the surface 210, Figs. 2A, 2C, 4 including that of screw threading holes as described at Col. 3, lines 59 – 66).
Even though Goodman teaches one or more isolated apertures as described above and further Goodman teaches an operation of the proof mass which is always maintained in a balanced position as described at Col. 4, line 59 – Col. 5, line 4, Goodman is silent regarding the selective laser etching of the one or more isolated apertures within the proof mass to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass.
Dwyer, in the field of accelerometers, teaches use of an accelerometer with one or more apertures to place a center of mass of the proof mass at a geometric center of the proof mass (see paragraph [0099] and claim 10 describing in some examples, the dimensions of the proof mass (i.e., which includes the apertures as illustrated at Figs. 1 – 3), are configured so that the center of mass of the proof mass is aligned with the geometric center of the proof mass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to proof mass configuration of Dwyer into Goodman, in order to allow the circuit of the accelerometers to be symmetrical. The modification further provides reduced cross-axis sensitivity, improves linearity and enhances overall reliability of the accelerometer.
Goodman in view of Dwyer as modified above further teaches;
sputtering a metallic material on surface of the proof mass; and laser ablating the sputtered metallic material to form one or more integrated coils on the proof mass (see Col. 3, lines 53 – 56 of Goodman describing the metalizing the surface of the proof mass to form the arcuate electrodes, see also Col. 4, lines 44 – 58 of Goodman describing final thinning of the PM accomplished by laser ablation to all of the PM areas shown in Fig. 2 except for the hinge areas and the cross hatched area 241, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Insofar as Goodman may be construed as not explicitly teaching “selective laser etching one or more isolated apertures”, Goodman does teach formation of a quartz proof mass assembly, having the apertures as seen at Figs. 2A, 2C, 4A, using laser ablation fabrication process instead of the conventional wet-etch technique (see Col. 1, lines 22 – 66), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively laser etching one or more apertures of Goodman using the laser etching or laser ablation process as described by Goodman, since Goodman does teach the use of laser ablation to form the proof mass as described above. The modification provides highly controllable and reproducible process and further enables very thin surfaces to be ablated with minimal damage to the surface (see Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 14 of Goodman).
In addition, even though Goodman teaches forming electrodes on the proof mass by “metallizing” as described above, Goodman is silent regarding “sputtering” the metallic material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sputtering technique, since it’s known in the art of processing/fabrication of materials that employing/using a known technique (i.e., sputtering) to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious.
Regarding Claims 2, 10 and 18, Goodman as modified above teaches wherein the one or more etched apertures are positioned between a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate (see multiple openings/holes/apertures at Figs. 2A, 2C, 4A, see Col. 3, lines 18 – 21, Col. 4, lines 4 – 52 and process at Fig. 3 of Goodman).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Goodman as modified above teaches wherein the substrate comprises the one or more integrated coils formed by laser ablation (see Col. 3, lines 53 – 56 describing the metalizing the surface of the proof mass to form the arcuate electrodes, see also Col. 4, lines 44 – 58 describing final thinning of the PM accomplished by laser ablation to all of the PM areas shown in Fig. 2 except for the hinge areas and the cross hatched area 241, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 5, 13 and 20, even though Goodman in view of Dwyer teaches size of the etching as described at Col. 4, lines 4 – 51 of Goodman and/or see paragraph [0093] of Dwyer describing different applications may allow for or require different sizes of devices, and other such variations, Goodman in view of Dwyer as modified above does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of a location or size of the one or more etched apertures correspond to at least one of a width or a number of turns of the one or more integrated coils. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the size as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the apertures as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Goodman as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the substrate comprises a monolithic substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use monolithic substrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In addition, Dwyer teaches the substrate comprises a monolithic substrate (see paragraphs [0031] – [0032] describing the proof mass assembly comprising the outer hoop, raised pads 4, flexures 6, 10, 14, proof mass 12 etc. all being made from a monolithic material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a monolithic material of Dwyer into Goodman in order to provide increased strength and durability.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Goodman as modified above teaches wherein the substrate comprises a quartz substrate (see Fig. 3 describing quartz wafer, see Fig. 4A illustrating quartz proof mass 1, see Col. 4, lines 4 – 53).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Goodman as modified above teaches wherein the substrate comprises a fused quartz substrate (see Fig. 3 describing quartz wafer, see Fig. 4A illustrating quartz proof mass 1, see Col. 4, lines 29 – 33, describing use of amorphous quartz wafer, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Spivak (U.S. No. 10,067,154 B2) teaches an accelerometer which includes a support wafer, a bottom wafer, a top wafer, and an inductive pick-off. In some examples, source coil 10 may be sputtered on the outside of top wafer 2. In some examples, pick-off coils 12-18 may also be sputtered on the outside of top wafer 2. In some examples, a target coil may be sputtered on a first side of the proof mass. In some examples, source coil 10 may form aperture 11. In these examples, the target coil may be positioned below aperture 11 in the Z-direction and positioned within aperture 11 in the X-direction and Y-direction (“dual-axis”). Similarly, in some examples, the winding of pick-off coils 12-18 may be substantially positioned within aperture 11 of source coil 10 in the X, Y, and Z directions. In some examples, pick-off coils 12-18 may be positioned slightly above aperture 11 of source coil 10 in the Z-direction because pick-off coils 12-18 may have dielectrics layers placed between source coil 10 and each other to ensure electrical insulation.
Dwyer et al. (U.S. No. 9,016,126 B2) teaches a MEMS accelerometer having a flux concentrator between parallel magnets. Further includes A planar coil 60 is located on the first side of the proof mass 42 and extends on both sides of the rotational axis of the proof mass 42. The coil 60 is a single layer spiral coil in an example embodiment. In an example embodiment, the coil 60 includes approximately 10 turns that are each approximately 45 micrometers (microns) wide, with a spacing of approximately 15 microns between turns and a thickness of approximately 0.5 microns. However, different numbers of turns, widths, spacing, and thicknesses for the coil 60 may also be used.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights