DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed October 6, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 21, 22, 24-28, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa et al. (US 2005/0117833 A1; hereafter Fukuzawa) in view of Pelly et al. (US 2014/0363172 A1; hereafter Pelly) and Terauchi et al. (JP 2005-134451 A; hereafter Terauchi ).
Regarding claim 1; Fukuzawa discloses an optoelectronic device (see Figures 1-12), comprising:
a photonic component (see Figure 6(a)) having a first recess (the opening above reflection surface 160 is a first recess) and comprising a waveguide (waveguide 130 core(s) 110) at least partially overlapping the first recess (see Figures 6(a) and 6(b));
an optical channel (the optical channels are formed by optical fiber 170 cores 180; see Figures 6(b) and 11)) overlapping the first recess (see Figures 6(b));
a first cladding layer (120a/120b) configured to protect the waveguide (110); and
a second cladding layer (190) surrounding the optical channel (180) and contacting the waveguide (110; see Figure 6(b)), wherein the first cladding layer (120a/120b) and the second cladding layer (190) extend in substantially perpendicular directions (see Figure 6(b)).
Fukuzawa does not disclose that the first cladding comprises an oxide material, or that the optical channel comprises a plurality of optical channels, wherein the plurality of optical channels are separated from one another by a spacing filled with the second cladding layer.
The examiner takes Official notice that oxide materials, including silicon dioxide (commonly called silica, SiO2) is routinely used to form cladding layers in the art. For example, Pelly discloses the use of oxide layers (BOX; see Figure 35; see paragraphs 72 and 75) to form a cladding layers (502 and 509). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select any known materials to form the core and/or cladding layers for the purpose of obtaining desired optical transmission results, including the selection of an oxide material to form the cladding layer for the purpose of selecting a commonly used and well known material with desirable optical transmission properties, 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 (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), and since one of ordinary skill could use oxide materials, which are known alternative cladding materials, to form the cladding with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Terauchi discloses an optoelectronic device (See Figure 7, annotated below) comprising:
a photonic component (integrated circuit with optical mirror) having a recess (first recess) and comprising waveguide (4) at least partially overlapping the first recess;
a plurality of optical channels (cores of unit waveguides 53; optical channels, see annotated Figure 7 below; the examiner notes that vertical waveguide 5 of Figure 7 is formed by adjoining individual unit waveguides 53, and that the individual unit waveguides inherently require a central core surrounded by a cladding) overlapping the first recess;
a first cladding layer (first cladding; see Figure 7, annotated below) configured to protect the waveguide (4); and
a second cladding layer (cladding of unit waveguides 53; see Figure 7, annotated below; the examiner notes that adjoining a plurality of unit waveguides each having a core surrounded by a cladding inherently involves adjoining the cladding of the waveguides, since the cladding forms the outer peripheral surface thereof, and thereby a cladding layer surrounding cores is formed) surrounding the plurality of optical channels (the optical channels are the waveguides cores), wherein the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer extend in substantially perpendicular directions (see Figure 7), wherein the plurality of optical channels (cores) are separated from one another by a spacing filled with the second cladding layer (i.e. the adjoined claddings form a cladding layer that separate the cores, since the claddings inherently surround the cores forming the basic waveguide structure).
Terauchi teaches that the plurality of optical channels (5; see Figure 7) is an alternative embodiment to a single optical channel (5; see Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a plurality of optical channels in the invention of Fukuzawa in place of the single optical channel, for the purpose of providing an increased transmission capacity, wherein the plurality of optical channels are separated from one another by a spacing filled with the second cladding layer, since a plurality of optical channels was a known alternative optical channel configuration in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 21; Fukuzawa, Pelly, and Terauchi teach or suggest the optoelectronic device of claim 1 as applied above, wherein the first cladding layer (120a/120b) comprises an oxide layer (see the rejection of claim 1 above) contacting an upper surface and a lower surface of the waveguide (110) in cross-sectional view (see Figure 1) and spaced apart from the optical channels (180) by a portion of the second cladding layer (190) in a direction substantially parallel to the upper surface of the waveguide. Fukuzawa, Pelly, and Terauchi do not disclose that the plurality of optical channels are arranged in two rows in a top view. However, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide any desired number of optical channels in any desired number of rows for the purpose of transmitting optical signals to or from a desired number of optical components located in one or multiple rows, since nothing novel or unexpected would appear to result from this arrangement, and since mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected results is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22; Fukuzawa, Pelly, and Terauchi teach or suggest the optoelectronic device of claim 21 as applied above, wherein the waveguide (110 of Fukuzawa) has a side surface extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (see Figure 1) and the optical channels (plurality of optical channels in place of single optical channel 180; see the rejection of claim 1 above) directly contact the upper surface of the waveguide (110; see Figure 1 of Fukuzawa).
Fukuzawa does not disclose that the side surface of waveguide (110) is exposed to the first recess. Terauchi teaches a configuration in which the side surface of the waveguide is exposed to a first recess. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively provide a first recess to which the waveguide (110) of Fukuzawa is exposed for the purpose of forming the reflective surface in a known alternative manner, since one of ordinary skill could have formed the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Fukuzawa disclose that a length of the side surface of the waveguide (110) is less than a length of the upper surface and a length of the lower surface of the waveguide (110). Additionally, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the dimensions of the elements of the optoelectronic device for the purpose of forming a device that will fit into a desired space, including providing a length of the side surface of the waveguide that is less than a length of the upper surface and a length of the lower surface of the waveguide, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re 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)).
Regarding claims 24-25; Fukuzawa, Pelly, and Terauchi teach and/or suggest that first cladding layer (120a/120b) comprises an oxide layer (see the rejection of claim 1 above) defining a second recess (a second recess is defined in layer 120b) for accommodating a portion of the optical channels (180; see Figure 1 of Fukuzawa; see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a portion of the waveguide (110) is exposed to the second recess of the oxide layer (120b; see Figure 1 of Fukuzawa). Terauchi further teaches that a waveguide (4; see Figure 7) may have a first end exposed to the first recess, wherein the second recess (the plurality of adjoined unit waveguides 53 are in the second recess) that does not extend beyond the first end of the waveguide (see Figure 7 of Terauchi). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the first end of the waveguide exposed to the first recess, wherein the second recess doe not extend beyond the first end of the waveguide, since this was a known alternative configuration of prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 26-27; Fukuzawa, Pelly, and Terauchi teach and/or suggest the optoelectronic device of claim 24 (see the rejections of claims 1, 22 and 24 above; the examiner notes the first recess discussed with respect to claim 22, suggested by the teachings of Terauchi ), wherein the first recess (a recess forming the reflective surface as suggested by Terauchi , see Figure 7 of Terauchi , at the location of reflective surface 160 in Figure 1 of Fukuzawa; see the rejection of claim 22 above) overlaps the second recess (the recess formed by an opening in cladding layer 120b) of the oxide layer (see the rejection of claim 1 above) in a first direction substantially parallel to an extending direction of the optical channels (180), wherein the first recess (see Figure 7 of Terauchi ) is spaced apart from the second recess (the optical channels of waveguides units 53 being in the second recess; the optical channel 180 of Fukuzawa being in the second recess) by a portion of the waveguide (4 of Terauchi ; waveguide 110 of Fukuzawa) in the first direction.
Regarding claim 28; Fukuzawa, Pelly and Terauchi teach and/or suggest that the first cladding layer (120a, 120b) comprising an oxide layer (see the rejection of claim 1 above) contacting the photonic component and spaced apart from the optical channels (180; see Figure 1 of Fukuzawa; see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first cladding layer (120a, 120b) has a top surface and a lower surface opposite to the top surface in a cross-sectional view, and wherein the second cladding layer has a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface opposite to the first lateral surface in the cross-sectional view, but do not specify that a first distance between the top surface and the bottom surface of the first cladding layer is less than a second distance between the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface of the second cladding layer. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the dimensions of the waveguide and optical channels for the purpose of providing a device that fits within a desired space, including providing a first distance between the top surface and the bottom surface of the first cladding layer that is less than a second distance between the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface of the second cladding layer, since no novel or unexpected results would occur, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re 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)).
Regarding claims 40-42; before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust dimensions of the various elements of the device suggested by the prior art teachings discussed above, including providing a spacing that is larger than 0.2 micrometers, a width of the optical channels that is larger than a width of the waveguide in a cross-sectional view, and a width of the waveguide in a range of 0.25 micrometers to 1 micrometer for the purpose of providing a desired optical coupling function with a desired spot size to minimize optical loss and increase coupling efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re 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)).
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelly et al. (US 2014/0363172 A1; hereafter Pelly) in view of Terauchi et al. (JP 2005-134451 A; hereafter Terauchi ).
Regarding claim 1; Pelly discloses an optoelectronic device (see Figures 6 and 25-35), comprising:
a photonic component (integrated circuit die with optical mirror; see Figures 25-35) having a first recess (517) and comprising a waveguide (503) at least partially overlapping the first recess (517);
an optical channel (508/505) overlapping the first recess (517);
a first cladding layer (502) comprising an oxide material (buried oxide layer, BOX) and configured to protect the waveguide (502); and
a second cladding layer (504) surrounding the optical channel (502/505) and contacting the waveguide (503), wherein the first cladding layer (502) and the second cladding layer (504) extend in substantially perpendicular directions (see Figures 33-35).
Pelly does not disclose that the optical channel includes a plurality of optical channels, wherein the plurality of optical channels are separated from one another by a spacing filled with the second cladding layer.
Terauchi discloses an optoelectronic device (See Figure 7, annotated below) comprising:
a photonic component (integrated circuit with optical mirror) having a recess (first recess) and comprising waveguide (4) at least partially overlapping the first recess;
a plurality of optical channels (cores of unit waveguides 53; optical channels, see annotated Figure 7 below; the examiner notes that vertical waveguide 5 of Figure 7 is formed by adjoining individual unit waveguides 53, and that the individual unit waveguides inherently require a central core surrounded by a cladding) overlapping the first recess;
a first cladding layer (first cladding; see Figure 7, annotated below) configured to protect the waveguide (4); and
a second cladding layer (cladding of unit waveguides 53; see Figure 7, annotated below; the examiner notes that adjoining a plurality of unit waveguides each having a core surrounded by a cladding inherently involves adjoining the cladding of the waveguides, since the cladding forms the outer peripheral surface thereof, and thereby a cladding layer surrounding cores is formed) surrounding the optical channels, wherein the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer extend in substantially perpendicular directions (see Figure 7), wherein the plurality of optical channels (cores) are separated from one another by a spacing filled with the second cladding layer (i.e. the adjoined claddings form a cladding layer that separate the cores, since the claddings inherently surround the cores forming the basic waveguide structure).
Terauchi teaches that the plurality of optical channels (5; see Figure 7) is an alternative embodiment to a single optical channel (5; see Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a plurality of optical channels in the invention of Pelly in place of the single optical channel, wherein the plurality of optical channels are separated from one another by a spacing filled with the second cladding layer, for the purpose of providing an increased transmission capacity, since a plurality of optical channels was a known alternative optical channel configuration in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelly et al. (US 2014/0363172 A1; hereafter Pelly).
Regarding claim 11; Pelly discloses an optoelectronic device (see Figures 6 and 25-35), comprising:
a first optical channel (508/505);
a photonic component having a recess (515) and comprising a second optical channel (503) optically coupled to the first optical channel (508/505), wherein the first optical channel (508/505) is arranged along an extending direction of the second optical channel (503); and
a cladding oxide layer (509/502) covering the second optical channel (503),
wherein a portion (509) of the cladding oxide layer and a portion of the second optical channel (503) are both exposed to the recess (515; layer 514 is located within the recess, thus exposure to the recess is exposure to layer 514; see Figure 33), and the first optical channel (508/505) is partially embedded in the cladding oxide layer (502) and contacting the second optical channel (503);
wherein the second optical channel (503) has a side surface extending between an upper surface and a lower surface and exposed to the recess (515), wherein an angle is formed by the upper surface and the side surface of the second optical channel (503).
In the embodiment of Figure 32 of Pelly, the angle is approximately 45 degrees such that the optical signal will be reflected between perpendicular waveguides. Pelly does not teach that the angle is about 25 degrees. However, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the angle to reflect light in a direction that is not perpendicular for the purpose of allowing the optical channels to be oriented in directions that are not perpendicular to route signals, including an angle of about 25 degrees, since no novel or unexpected results would appear to occur.
Claims 11 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terauchi et al. (JP 2005-134451 A; hereafter Terauchi ) in view of Pelly et al. (US 2014/0363172 A1; hereafter Pelly).
Regarding claim 11; Terauchi discloses an optoelectronic device (see Figure 7), comprising:
a first optical channel (optical channels formed by a core of unit waveguide 53; see annotated Figure 7 below);
a photonic component having a recess (first recess; see annotated Figure 7 below) and comprising a second optical channel (4) optically coupled to the first optical channel (optical channels), wherein the first optical channel is arranged along an extending direction of the second optical channel (see Figure 7); and
a cladding layer (first cladding; see Figure 7 annotated below) covering the second optical channel (4),
wherein a portion of the cladding layer (first cladding) and a portion of the second optical channel (4) are both exposed to the recess (first recess);
wherein the second optical channel (4) has a side surface extending between an upper surface an a lower surface and exposed to the recess (first recess), and an angle is formed by the upper surface and the side surface of the second optical channel.
Terauchi does not disclose that the cladding layer is an oxide layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
467
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes Official notice that oxide materials, including silicon dioxide (commonly called silica, SiO2) is routinely used to form cladding layers in the art. For example, Pelly discloses the use of oxide layers (BOX; see Figure 35; see paragraphs 72 and 75) to form a cladding layers (502 and 509). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select any known materials to form the core and/or cladding layers for the purpose of obtaining desired optical transmission results, including the selection of an oxide material to form the cladding layer for the purpose of selecting a commonly used and well known material with desirable optical transmission properties, 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 (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), and since one of ordinary skill could use oxide materials, which are known alternative cladding materials, to form the cladding with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, in the embodiment of Figure 7, Terauchi does not disclose that the first optical channel (optical channel(s); see annotated Figure 7 above) is partially embedded in the cladding oxide layer (first cladding) and contacting the second optical channel (optical channel(s)). However, in the embodiment of Figure 9, Terauchi further teaches that the first optical channel may be partially embedded in the cladding layer and contacting the second optical channel (see annotated Figure 9(3) below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the first optical channel be partially embedded in the cladding oxide layer and contacting the second optical channel, since this as a known alternative channel arrangement taught by Terauchi , and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the angle between the upper surface and the side surface of the second optical channel be any desired angle, including an angle of 25 degrees, for the purpose of directing light in a desired direction to achieve desired optical coupling results, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with no unexpected results occurring, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 29; Terauchi teaches that a surface of the portion of the cladding oxide layer (first cladding in Figure 7 annotated above; cladding layer in Figure 9 annotated above) and a surface of the portion of the second optical channel (4, second optical channel) are exposed to the recess (recess) and are substantially aligned with each other.
Regarding claim 30; a portion of the first optical channel (optical channel) extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to the extending direction of the second optical channel (4; see Figure 7 of Terauchi ) and overlaps the cladding oxide layer (first cladding) in the extending direction of the second optical channel (4).
Regarding claim 31; wherein the cladding oxide layer (first cladding in annotated Figure 7 above) comprises a tapered portion toward the recess (the tapered portion adjacent the recess).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 34, 35, and 44 are allowed.
Claim 43 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the optoelectronic device defined by claim 16, wherein a width of the plurality of optical channels increases from the back side to the active side of the photonic component in a cross-sectional view in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 16. Claims 34, 35, and 44 depend from claim 16.
The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious to the optoelectronic device defined by claim 43, further comprising an organic cladding layer covering the first optical channel in combination with all of the limitations of base claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner appears to be equality the cores of unit waveguides 53 to the second cladding, and the gap between the cores of the unit waveguides 53 to the optical channels.
This is incorrect. The unit waveguides each include a core surrounded by a cladding material, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. When the unit waveguides are adjoined, the cores are surrounded by the adjoined cladding material.
Applicant states that the prior are does not disclose a 25 degree angle between the upper surface and the side surface of the second optical channel.
It’s within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the angle between the upper surface and the side surface of the second optical channel for the purpose of coupling light in a desired direction, since no novel or unexpected results would appear to occur from this configuration and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angle would determine the direction that the light is coupled.
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 MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874