DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 03/31/2026, claims 1-17 and 21 are pending. Claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1 and 13 are currently amended. Claims 1-17 and 21 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 102 rejections to claims 1-3 and 12 are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Previous 35 USC 102 rejections to claim 13 is maintained in view of the Applicant’s amendment. See Response to Argument.
35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader).
Regarding Claim 13, Vader teaches an additive manufacturing system (Figure 1) for liquid droplet-on- demand jetting to manufacture a part from liquid droplets of a feedstock (abstract and [0006]), the system (Figure 1) comprising:
a printhead (Figure 3, ejector 30) having a nozzle (ejector 30 has a nozzle) having first and second orifices (Figure 3 and Figure 7, a single ejector 30 with a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters [0030]) for ejecting liquid droplets created from the feedstock ([0029], operation of the ejector 30 can cause ejection of molten material through all of the orifices in orifice area 36 effectively simultaneously), wherein the first and second orifices have differing dimensions (Figure 7 and [0030], a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters);
a controller (Figure 9 and [0034], a flowchart showing the operation of a control system of hardware, thus, the system comprises a control system) ;
a memory accessible by the controller (Figure 9 and [0034], all control system have memory for storing data information;
a pressure pulse data file accessible stored in the memory and usable by the controller and containing data needed for generating first and second differing pressure pulses ([0033], the amplitude or duration of pulses can be adjusted to obtain a desired particle size within a practical range) designed to selectively cause ejection from either only the first orifice, or only the second orifice, or from both of the first and second orifice ([0029], operation of the ejector 30 can cause ejection of molten material through all of the orifices in orifice area 36 effectively simultaneously; that is, a single pulse applied to the coil 44 will cause at least one droplet of material to be emitted through multiple orifices), as needed, to form the part ([0035], a control system operative of the machine 10 receives a request for a sample of fairly well-mixed particles D1, D2, D3 of predetermined desired diameters. At step 902 there can be calculated how many pulses would be required (again, based on design and/or experimentation) to make absolute desired amounts of each type of particle with the machine, to obtain the desired mixture. Thus, it is implied that a data file is present and accessible by the control system to contain the calculated data and generate pulses based on the data); and
a pulse generating subsystem ([0022], ejection is performed by creation of Lorentz forces created in the pool of material by electromagnetic forces via a coil 44 , which in turn is associated with a control system applying electrical voltage pulses thereto; thus, a pulse generating subsystem is present) responsive to the controller for generating the first and second pressure pulses ([0033], the amplitude or duration of pulses can be adjusted to obtain a desired particle size within a practical range) to selectively cause ejection of liquid droplets from either only the first orifice, or only the second orifice, or from both of said first and second orifices of the nozzle of the printhead ([0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader) and US2015/0145910 (Libinson).
Regarding Claim 1, Vader teaches an additive manufacturing system (Figure 1) for droplet-on-demand jetting to manufacture a part from a feedstock (abstract and [0006]), the system (Figure 1) comprising:
a printhead (Figure 3, ejector 30) having a nozzle (ejector 30 has a nozzle) having first and second orifices (Figure 3 and Figure 7, a single ejector 30 with a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters [0030]) for ejecting liquid droplets created from the feedstock ([0029], operation of the ejector 30 can cause ejection of molten material through all of the orifices in orifice area 36 effectively simultaneously), wherein the first and second orifices have at least one differing characteristic (Figure 7 and [0030], a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters);
a controller (Figure 9 and [0034], a flowchart showing the operation of a control system of hardware, thus, the system comprises a control system).
Vader further discloses a control system operative of the machine 10 receives a request for a sample of fairly well-mixed particles D1, D2, D3 of predetermined desired diameters. At step 902 there can be calculated how many pulses would be required (again, based on design and/or experimentation) to make absolute desired amounts of each type of particle with the machine, to obtain the desired mixture ([0035) but fails to explicitly teach a pressure pulse data file accessible by the controller and containing data needed for generating first and second differing pressure pulses designed to selectively cause ejection from either only the first orifice or only the second orifice, as needed, to form the part; and a pulse generating subsystem responsive to the controller and the data contained in the pressure pulse data file for generating the first and second pressure pulses relative to the nozzle, and selectively causing ejection of liquid droplets from either only the first orifice or only the second orifice of the nozzle.
However, Libinson teaches a pressure pulse data file accessible by the controller (Figure 1 and [0039], Processor 22 of controller 20 may communicate with data storage unit 24) and containing data needed ([0040]-[0041], data storage unit 24 may be utilized to store programmed instructions for operation of processor 22 or controller 20. The stored programmed instructions may include instructions for operation one or more modules of controller 20, such as jetting control module 26 and material supply control module 38) for generating first and second differing pressure pulses designed to selectively cause ejection from either only the first orifice or only the second orifice (Figure 3A and [0055]), as needed, to form the part ([0055]); and a pulse generating subsystem (Figure 1, piezoelectric jetting unit 14) responsive to the controller ([0014], each piezoelectric jetting unit 14 may be operated by a jetting control module 26 of controller 20 to generate a sequence of electrical pulses that are applied to a piezoelectric actuator of that piezoelectric jetting unit 1) and the data contained in the pressure pulse data file for generating the first and second pressure pulses relative to the nozzle ([0040]-[0041] and [0068]), and selectively causing ejection of liquid droplets from either only the first orifice or only the second orifice of the nozzle ([0055]).
Vader and Libinson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using pulse force to control the discharge of the liquid droplets from a plurality of nozzle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system as taught by Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Libinson to increase gas bubble content and decrease density of the dispensed material ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Vader teaches the system of 1, wherein the at least one differing characteristic comprises a dimension of the first orifice relative to a dimension of the second orifice (Vader, Figure 7 and [0030], a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one differing characteristic comprises a cross sectional shape of the first orifice relative to a shape of the second orifice (Vader, Figure 7 and [0030], Figure 7 is cross sectional view of the orifices area which showed that different orifice have different cross sectional shapes).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first orifice comprises a diameter of from 50 µm to 300 µm.
As the diameter of the resulting powder particle and distribution of the powder particles are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the orifice, with said diameter of the resulting powder particle and the distribution of the powder particles increasing as the diameter of the orifice is increased (Vader, [0026] and [0029]), the precise diameter of the orifice would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the orifice cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the orifice in the apparatus of the modified Vader to obtain the desired diameter of the resulting powder particle and desired distribution of powder particles (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first orifice comprises a diameter of 200 µm.
As the diameter of the resulting powder particle and distribution of the powder particles are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the orifice, with said diameter of the resulting powder particle and the distribution of the powder particles increasing as the diameter of the orifice is increased (Vader, [0026] and [0029]), the precise diameter of the orifice would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the orifice cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the orifice in the apparatus of the modified Vader to obtain the desired diameter of the resulting powder particle and desired distribution of powder particles (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second orifice comprises a diameter of from 300 µm to 1000 µm.
As the diameter of the resulting powder particle and distribution of the powder particles are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the orifice, with said diameter of the resulting powder particle and the distribution of the powder particles increasing as the diameter of the orifice is increased (Vader, [0026] and [0029]), the precise diameter of the orifice would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the orifice cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the orifice in the apparatus of the modified Vader to obtain the desired diameter of the resulting powder particle and desired distribution of powder particles (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second orifice comprises a diameter of 500 µm.
As the diameter of the resulting powder particle and distribution of the powder particles are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the orifice, with said diameter of the resulting powder particle and the distribution of the powder particles increasing as the diameter of the orifice is increased (Vader, [0026] and [0029]), the precise diameter of the orifice would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the orifice cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the orifice in the apparatus of the modified Vader to obtain the desired diameter of the resulting powder particle and desired distribution of powder particles (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of: a diameter to depth ratio of the first orifice is one-to-one; or a diameter to depth ratio of the second orifice is one-to-one (Vader, [0031], from the perspective of forming spherical particles and droplets, to have the effective thickness of the structure forming each orifice 60 , 62 , 64 in orifice area 36 be comparable (i.e., roughly equal) to the diameter of the orifice).
Regarding Claim 21, Vader teaches an additive manufacturing system (Figure 1) for droplet-on-demand jetting to manufacture a part from a feedstock (abstract and [0006]), the system comprising:
a printhead (Figure 3, ejector 30) having a nozzle (ejector 30 has a nozzle) having first and second orifices (Figure 3 and Figure 7, a single ejector 30 with a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters [0030]) for ejecting liquid droplets created from the feedstock ([0029], operation of the ejector 30 can cause ejection of molten material through all of the orifices in orifice area 36 effectively simultaneously), wherein the first and second orifices have at least one differing characteristic (Figure 7 and [0030], a set of orifices 36 of multiple predetermined diameters).
Vader further discloses a control system operative of the machine 10 receives a request for a sample of fairly well-mixed particles D1, D2, D3 of predetermined desired diameters. At step 902 there can be calculated how many pulses would be required (again, based on design and/or experimentation) to make absolute desired amounts of each type of particle with the machine, to obtain the desired mixture ([0035) but fails to explicitly teach a subsystem including a controller for selectively generating a plurality of differing pulses to selectively cause: ejection of a liquid droplet from only the first orifice; or ejection of the liquid droplet from only the second orifice.
However, Libinson teaches a subsystem including a controller (Figure 1, controller 20) for selectively generating a plurality of differing pulses to selectively cause ([0055]): ejection of a liquid droplet from only the first orifice ([0055]); or ejection of the liquid droplet from only the second orifice ([0055]).
Vader and Libinson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using pulse force to control the discharge of the liquid droplets from a plurality of nozzle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system as taught by Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Libinson to increase gas bubble content and decrease density of the dispensed material ([0056]).
Claim(s) 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader) and US2015/0145910 (Libinson) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of US2017/0252827 (“Sachs et al” hereinafter Sachs).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, Vader teaches ejection is performed by creation of Lorentz forces created in the pool of material by electromagnetic forces via a coil 44 , which in turn is associated with a control system applying electrical voltage pulses thereto; thus, a pulse generating subsystem is present ([0022]), but fails to teach wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a magnetohydrodynamic pulse generating subsystem configured to generate magnetic signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices.
However, Sachs teaches wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a magnetohydrodynamic pulse generating subsystem configured to generate magnetic signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices ([0004], an electric current delivered to produce the magnetohydrodynamic forces can be controlled between a pulsed electric current and a direct electric current to change the rate of liquid metal ejection from a nozzle).
Vader and Sachs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of liquid metal manufacturing and using pulse force to control the discharge of the liquid metal droplets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the pulse generating subsystem as taught by the modified Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Sachs to control between a pulsed electric current and a direct electric current to change the rate of liquid metal ejection from a nozzle ([0004]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way produce force/pulse to control the rate of discharge of materials. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claims 10, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a motion control subsystem for causing relative motion between the printhead and a build table on which the part is being printed.
However, Sachs teaches further comprising a motion control subsystem for causing relative motion between the printhead and a build table on which the part is being printed (Figure 1 and [0038], a robotic system 106 can move the nozzle 102 which caused relative motion between the nozzle and the build plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system as taught by the modified Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Sachs to move the nozzle along a controlled pattern to manufactured a 3D object ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Vader teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a heater for heating the feedstock received within an interior area of the printhead.
However, Sachs teaches a heater for heating the feedstock received within an interior area of the printhead (Figure 2B and [0055], a heater 226 an be in thermal communication with the liquid metal 112 ′ in the fluid chamber 208 to heat the liquid metal 112 ′ in the fluid chamber 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system as taught by the modified Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Sachs to heat the solid metal and liquify the metal in the fluid chamber prior to discharge the liquid metal ([0055]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader) and US2015/0145910 (Libinson) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of CN114888310 (“Wu et al” hereinafter Wu), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Vader teaches the system of claims 1, Vader teaches ejection is performed by creation of Lorentz forces created in the pool of material by electromagnetic forces via a coil 44 , which in turn is associated with a control system applying electrical voltage pulses thereto; thus, a pulse generating subsystem is present ([0022]), but fails to teach wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a pneumatic pulse generating subsystem configured to generate pneumatic pressure signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices.
However, Wu teaches wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a pneumatic pulse generating subsystem configured to generate pneumatic pressure signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices (page 2, lines 46-49).
Vader and Wu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of liquid metal manufacturing and using pulse force to control the discharge of the liquid metal droplets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the pulse generating subsystem as taught by the modified Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Wu to control the uniform jetting of metal droplets and ensure the printing quality and speed (page 2, lines 46-49). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way produce force/pulse to control the rate of discharge of materials. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader) as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of US2017/0252827 (“Sachs et al” hereinafter Sachs).
Regarding Claim 14, Vader teaches the system of claim 13, Vader teaches ejection is performed by creation of Lorentz forces created in the pool of material by electromagnetic forces via a coil 44, which in turn is associated with a control system applying electrical voltage pulses thereto; thus, a pulse generating subsystem is present ([0022]), but fails to teach wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a magnetohydrodynamic push-pull pulse generating subsystem configured to generate magnetic signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices.
However, Sachs teaches wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a magnetohydrodynamic push-pull pulse generating subsystem configured to generate magnetic signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices ([0004], an electric current delivered to produce the magnetohydrodynamic forces can be controlled between a pulsed electric current and a direct electric current to change the rate of liquid metal ejection from a nozzle).
Vader and Sachs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of liquid metal manufacturing and using pulse force to control the discharge of the liquid metal droplets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the pulse generating subsystem as taught by Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Sachs to control between a pulsed electric current and a direct electric current to change the rate of liquid metal ejection from a nozzle ([0004]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way produce force/pulse to control the rate of discharge of materials. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claims 16, Vader teaches the system of claim 13, but fails to teach further comprising a motion control subsystem for causing relative motion between the printhead and a build table on which the part is being printed.
However, Sachs teaches further comprising a motion control subsystem for causing relative motion between the printhead and a build table on which the part is being printed (Figure 1 and [0038], a robotic system 106 can move the nozzle 102 which caused relative motion between the nozzle and the build plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system as taught by the modified Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Sachs to move the nozzle along a controlled pattern to manufactured a 3D object ([0038]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of CN114888310 (“Wu et al” hereinafter Wu), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 15, Vader teaches the system of claim 13, Vader teaches ejection is performed by creation of Lorentz forces created in the pool of material by electromagnetic forces via a coil 44, which in turn is associated with a control system applying electrical voltage pulses thereto; thus, a pulse generating subsystem is present ([0022]), but fails to teach wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a pneumatic pulse generating subsystem configured to generate pneumatic pressure signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices.
However, Wu teaches wherein the pulse generating subsystem comprises a pneumatic pulse generating subsystem configured to generate pneumatic pressure signals adapted to cause ejection of one or more of the droplets from one or more of the first and second orifices (page 2, lines 46-49).
Vader and Wu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of liquid metal manufacturing and using pulse force to control the discharge of the liquid metal droplets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the pulse generating subsystem as taught by Vader such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Wu to control the uniform jetting of metal droplets and ensure the printing quality and speed (page 2, lines 46-49). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way produce force/pulse to control the rate of discharge of materials. See MPEP 2143.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0351488 (“Vader et al” hereinafter Vader).
Regarding Claim 17, Vader teaches the system of claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the first orifice is circular and has a diameter of between 50 µm to 300 µm; and the second orifice is circular and has a diameter of between 300 µm to 1000 µm.
As the diameter of the resulting powder particle and distribution of the powder particles are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the orifice, with said diameter of the resulting powder particle and the distribution of the powder particles increasing as the diameter of the orifice is increased (Vader, [0026] and [0029]), the precise diameter of the orifice would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the orifice cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the orifice in the apparatus of Vader to obtain the desired diameter of the resulting powder particle and desired distribution of powder particles (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-17 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to new limitations and have been rejected as stated above.
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights