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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-15 and 26-33 in the reply filed on January 20th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 9-12 have been amended. Claims 16-24 have been cancelled. New claims 27-33 have been added. Claims 1-15 and 25-33 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-15 and 25-33 as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15, 25-32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerry (Photonics 2020,7, 75, “the Interband Cascade Laser”, hereinafter as Jerry) in view of Rui (J.Appl. Phys. 127, 025705 (2020), hereinafter as Rui) and further in view of Kurtz (US 5995529, hereinafter as Kurt ‘529).
Regarding Claim 1, Jerry teaches an interband cascade (IC) optoelectronic device, comprising: a plurality of IC stages, wherein each of the IC stages comprises:
a hole injector (Hole Injector, see Fig. 2);
an electron injector (Electron Injector, see Fig. 2);
an active region (Active; see Fig. 2) coupled to the hole injector and the electron injector and comprising a first layer ((W); see the last paragraph of pp. 6), wherein the first layer comprises a first material (InAs/GaInSb; pp. 6), a conduction band (CB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region; and a valence band (VB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region (see Fig. 2).
Thus, Jerry is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is a barrier layer comprising a first material the first material comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP)”.
Rui teaches the first layer is a barrier layer (see pp. 3, col. 2, lines 2-8) comprising a first material the first material comprises P containing compound (GaInP or AlGaPAs) (see pp. 4, col. 1, para. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry by having the first layer is a barrier layer comprising a first material the first material comprises P containing compound for achieving relatively long wave length optoelectronic device (see pp. 4, col. 1, para. 2) as suggested by Rui.
Thus, Jerry and Rui are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP)”.
Kurt ‘529 teaches the material (24) comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) (see col. 4, lines 66-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry and Rui by having the material comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) for electron confinement (see col. 2, lines 66-67) as suggested by Kurt ‘529.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP) material for the barrier layer (or the first layer) on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP) material for the barrier layer (or the first layer) when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 9, Jerry teaches an interband cascade (IC) optoelectronic device, comprising: a plurality of IC stages, wherein each of the IC stages comprises:
a hole injector (Hole Injector, see Fig. 2);
an electron injector (Electron Injector, see Fig. 2);
an active region (Active; see Fig. 2) coupled to the hole injector and the electron injector and comprising a first side; a second side; a first layer ((W); see the last paragraph of pp. 6), wherein the first layer is positioned on the first side comprises a first material (InAs/GaInSb; pp. 6); a fourth layer which is adjacent to the first layer, wherein the fourth layer comprises a fourth material, and wherein the fourth material comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) or aluminum antimony arsenide (AlSbAs) (see Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 1-10)a conduction band (CB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region; and a valence band (VB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region (see Fig. 2).
Thus, Jerry is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is a barrier layer comprising a first material the first material comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP); and a fourth layer is a second barrier layer is adjacent to the first layer or the second side”.
Rui teaches the first layer is a barrier layer (see pp. 3, col. 2, lines 2-8) comprising a first material the first material comprises P containing compound (GaInP or AlGaPAs) (see pp. 4, col. 1, para. 2); and a fourth layer is a second barrier layer is adjacent to the first layer or the second side (see pp. 4, col. 2), para. 5-6; AlSb/InAs/GaSb/AlSb which AlSb is barrier layer and InAs and GaSb are two well layers). Thus, the first layer (AlSb) and the fourth layer (AlSb) are the first and second barrier layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry by having the first layer is a barrier layer comprising a first material the first material comprises P containing compound; and a fourth layer is a second barrier layer is adjacent to the first layer or the second side for achieving relatively long wave length optoelectronic device (see pp. 4, col. 1, para. 2) as suggested by Rui.
Thus, Jerry and Rui are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP)”.
Kurt ‘529 teaches the material (24) comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) (see col. 4, lines 66-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry and Rui by having the material comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) for electron confinement (see col. 2, lines 66-67) as suggested by Kurt ‘529.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP) material for the barrier layer (or the first layer) on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) or aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP) material for the barrier layer (or the first layer) when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
PNG
media_image1.png
242
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Jerry)
Regarding Claims 2 and 27, Jerry teaches the active region is a quantum well active region (see the last paragraph; pp. 6).
Regarding Claims 3 and 28, Jerry teaches the IC optoelectronic device is a laser (ICL), a light-emitting diode (LED) (see abstract).
Regarding Claims 4 and 29, Jerry teaches the IC optoelectronic device is a photodetector (see abstract); and the hole injector acts as an electron barrier and the electron injector acts as a hole barrier.
Amended claim 4 contains functional limitations “acts as an electron barrier and acts as a hole barrier” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “acts as an electron barrier and acts as a hole barrier” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention. Note that functional language in a device claim is directed to the device per se, no matter which of the device’s functions is referred to in the claim. See In re Ludtke and Sloan, 169 USPQ 563 at 567, and In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226, both of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the device per se which must be determined in a “functional language” claim and not the patentability of the function, and that an old or obvious device alleged to perform a new function is not patentable as a device, whether claimed in “functional language” terms or not. Examiner notes that the above case law makes clear that in such cases applicant has the burden of showing that a prior art device that appears reasonably capable of performing the allegedly novel function is in fact incapable of doing so. See MPEP § 2114. See also In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim to a spout having “taper … such as to by itself jam up the popped popcorn before the end of the cone and permit the dispensing of only a few kernels at a shake,” anticipated by an oil can spout having the same shape as spout Applicant disclosed as being adapted for dispensing said only a few kernels) and In re King, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir, 1986) ("It did not suffice merely to assert that [the cited prior art] does not inherently achieve [the claimed function], challenging the PTO to prove the contrary by experiment or otherwise. The PTO is not equipped to perform such tasks") for discussions of the roles of examiner and applicant in determining when and how functional limitations distinguish a claim from prior art disclosing the same structure.
Regarding Claims 5 and 30, Jerry teaches the second layer comprise a second material, and wherein the second material comprises gallium indium antimonide (GaInSb) (see Figs. 2-3, pp. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Jerry teaches the active region further comprises a first indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the first side of the second layer and a second indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the second side of the second layer, wherein the first indium arsenide-containing layer is adjacent to the first layer comprising the first material see (Figs. 2-3, pp. 6).
.
Regarding Claim 7, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers further comprise nitrogen (N)”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a Nitrogen material for the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have Nitrogen material for the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 8, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers further comprise nitrogen (N) and gallium (Ga)”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a Nitrogen and gallium (Ga) materials for the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have Nitrogen and gallium (Ga) materials for the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 10, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 3-18 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 20-35A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 12-35 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 12-35 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 3-18 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 20-35A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 12-35 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 12-35 A thick, on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 3-18 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 20-35A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 12-35 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 12-35 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 11, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 15-17 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 26-30 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 24-29 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 18-24 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 15-17 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 26-30 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 24-29 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 18-24 A thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 15-17 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 26-30 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 24-29 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 18-24 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 12, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 28 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 26.5 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 21.5 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 28 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 26.5 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 21.5 A thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 28 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 26.5 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 21.5 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 13, Kurt ‘529 teaches an additional first layer (24) which is positioned such that the first and second indium arsenide-containing layers are positioned between the first layer and the additional first layer (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kurt ‘529 teaches the first material (24) comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) (see col. 4, lines 66-67).
Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the InAsP of the first layer is InAsiyPy, where y = 0.3 to 0.8, and the GaInSb of the second layer is Ga1-xInxSb, where x = 0.1 to 0.4”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the InAsP of the first layer is InAsiyPy, where y = 0.3 to 0.8, and the GaInSb of the second layer is Ga1-xInxSb, where x = 0.1 to 0.4 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the InAsP of the first layer is InAsiyPy, where y = 0.3 to 0.8, and the GaInSb of the second layer is Ga1-xInxSb, where x = 0.1 to 0.4 when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 15, Kurt ‘529 teaches the first material (24) comprises indium arsenic phosphide (InAsP) (see col. 4, lines 66-67).
Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the InAsP of the first layer is InAsiyPy, where y is about 0.5, and the GaInSb of the second layer is Ga1-xInxSb, where x is about 0.35”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the InAsP of the first layer is InAsiyPy, where y is about 0.5, and the GaInSb of the second layer is Ga1-xInxSb, where x is about 0.35 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the InAsP of the first layer is InAsiyPy, where y is about 0.5, and the GaInSb of the second layer is Ga1-xInxSb, where x is about 0.35 when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 25, Kurt ‘529 teaches the first material is InAsP (see col. 4, lines 66-67).
Regarding Claim 26, Kurt ‘529 teaches the first material is InAsP or AlInAs (see col. 4, lines 66-67).
Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first material is AlInAsP”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the AlInAsP material for the first layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the AlInAsP material for the first layer when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 31, Rui teaches the active region further comprises a first indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the third side and a second indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the fourth side, wherein the first indium arsenide-containing layer is adjacent to the first layer comprising the first material (see pp. 7).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a first indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the third side and a second indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the fourth side, wherein the first indium arsenide-containing layer is adjacent to the first layer comprising the first material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a first indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the third side and a second indium arsenide-containing layer coupled to and positioned on the fourth side, wherein the first indium arsenide-containing layer is adjacent to the first layer comprising the first material when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 32, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 15-17 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 26-30 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 24-29 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 18-24 A thick, and the fourth layer is about 17-21 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 15-17 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 26-30 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 24-29 A thick, the second indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 18-24 A thick, and the fourth layer is about 17-21 A thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 15-17 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 26-30 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 24-29 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 18-24 A thick, and the fourth layer is about 17-21 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 33, Jerry and Kurt ‘529 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 28 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 26.5 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 21.5 A thick, and the fourth layer is about 19 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 28 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 26.5 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 21.5 A thick, and the fourth layer is about 19 A thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 28 A thick, the first indium arsenide-containing layer is closer to the electron injector and is about 26.5 A thick, the second indium arsenide- containing layer is closer to the hole injector and is about 21.5 A thick, and the fourth layer is about 19 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 25-33, filed on January 20th, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights