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
In response to the Office action dated 06/10/2025 the Amendment has been received on 12/10/2025. Claims 1, 4-6 and 14 have been amended. Claims 16-18 have been canceled. Claims 1-15, 19 and 20 are currently pending in this application from which claim 15 is withdrawn by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-10, filed on 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 and objection of claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The appropriate claims have been amended and/or canceled in order to overcome the rejections and objection provided in the previous Office action. Therefore, all the rejections of claims 1-20 and objection of claim 14 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, necessitated by the amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rose-Petruck (US PAP 2018/0206320 A1 provided as a prior art made of record in the conclusion chapter of the previous Office action) in addition with the prior arts provided in the previous Office action.
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, 3-6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Petruck (US PAP 2018/0206320 A1) in view of Mallozzi et al. (US Patent 4,484,339).
With respect to claim 1, Rose-Petruck teaches a laser-produced plasma X-ray system comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1): a liquid metal target (114) (see Fig. 1); a laser pulse emitter (116) producing laser pulses (118) in the suitable energy and pulse length range (see paragraphs 0022-0024); focusing optics (120) directing the laser pulses (118) onto the liquid target surface (see target beam location (122) in Fig. 1; 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028;), forming a laser-driven plasma that emits X-rays above 100keV (see paragraph 0022; Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
452
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but fail to explicitly teach that the laser pulses are in the range of 150 fs to 25 ps.
Mallozzi et al. teaches a laser-produced plasma X-ray system comprising (see Abstract; Figs. 1-3; column 4, line 27 – column 9, line 38) which explicitly teaches that it is known to employ a laser pulse emitter (27) producing laser pulses (14) (see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) in the range of 150 fs to 25 ps (see column 8, lines 22-47) with focusing optics (13) directing the laser pulses (14) onto the target surface (15) in order to provide user with the capabilities to generate a laser-driven plasma that emits X-rays (11) (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38).
Rose-Petruck and Mallozzi et al. disclose the related laser-produced plasma X-ray methods/apparatuses.
It 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 to employ the teachings of producing the laser pulses in the range of 150 fs to 25 ps as suggested by Mallozzi et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to treat Rose-Petruck and Mallozzi et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With respect to claim 3, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1; wherein Mallloszzi et al. further teaches that focusing electronics produce a prepulse in the range of 1-50 nanoseconds before a primary pulse (see column 4, line 4 and column 8, lines 37 and 38) in order to provide user with the capabilities to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1 wherein multiple laser pulses from multiple lasers are focused onto the liquid metal target (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1).
With respect to claim 5, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 4 wherein multiple laser prepulses are focused onto the liquid metal target (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1, wherein multiple laser prepulses are focused onto the liquid metal target (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1).
With respect to claim 19, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38); wherein an interaction region (122) is contained in a low-pressure chamber (see Fig. 1; column 4, lines 34-40).
With respect to claim 20, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38); wherein Mallloszzi et al. further teaches that the focusing optics produce a prepulse having a different pulse duration from a main pulse (see column 8, lines 8 disclosing precurser pulse duration “of about 1 to 30 nanoseconds” and column lines 39 and 40 disclosing main pulse duration “of about 1ps to 30 nanosecond) in order to provide user with the capabilities to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Petruck (US PAP 2018/0206320 A1) in view of Mallozzi et al. (US Patent 4,484,339) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of view of Dusterer et al. (Enhancement of laser-plasma EUV conversion efficiency by introduction of prepulses; (45.04 2003. Pages 441 and 442 + Citation). The prior art is provided by the applicant).
With respect to claim 2, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) but fail to explicitly mention that the focusing optics produce a prepulse in the range of 1-50 picoseconds before a primary pulse.
Dusterer et al. discloses a system/method for generating laser-produced plasma X-rays which explicitly teaches producing a prepulse in the range of 1-50 picoseconds before a primary pulse (see Figs. 1-3; pages 441 and 442) in order to enhance the generation of X-rays in a very simple and inexpensive way by determining conversion efficiency as a function of pulse duration and prepulse delay.
Rose-Petruck, Mallozzi et al. and Dusterer et al. disclose the related laser-produced plasma X-ray methods/apparatuses.
It 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 to employ the teachings of producing a prepulse in the range of 1-50 picoseconds before a primary pulse as suggested by Dasterer et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Peruck as modified by Mallozi et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to enhance the generation of X-rays in a very simple and inexpensive way by determining conversion efficiency as a function of pulse duration and prepulse delay in order to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to treat Rose-Petruck, Mallozzi et al. and Dusterer et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 2 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 7, 8, 10-12 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Petruck (US PAP 2018/0206320 A1) in view of Mallozzi et al. (US Patent 4,484,339) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Royon et al. (US PAP 2019/0234346 A1). The prior art is provided by the applicant.
With respect to claim 7, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches but fail to explicitly mention that the laser pulse emitter uses an Yb-doped gain medium.
Royon et al. discloses a system/method for pulsed laser emitter which explicitly teaches that laser pulse emitter can be an Yb-doped gain medium (see paragraph 0057 disclosing an ytterbium-doped fiber laser source) in order to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses for intended use (see paragraph 0085).
Rose-Petruck, Mallozzi et al. and Royon et al. disclose similar methods/apparatuses for pulsed laser emitter.
It 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 to employ teachings that the laser pulse emitter can be an Yb-doped gain medium as suggested by Royon et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified Mallozze et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
With respect to claim 8, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) and Royon et al. teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 7, wherein the Royon et al. further teaches that laser pulse emitter is a fiber laser system (0085) in order to provide user with the additional capabilities to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses for intended use.
It 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 to employ teachings that that laser pulse emitter is a fiber laser system as additionally suggested by Royon et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified by Mallozzi et al. and indicated above, since such a modification would provide user with the additional capabilities to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses allowing to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
With respect to claim 10, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) and Royon et al. teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 7; wherein Royen et al. further teaches that the laser pulse emitter is a thin-disk laser system (see paragraph 0007) in order to achieve a pulse of a several Joules in the femtosecond regime (see paragraph 0007).
It 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 to provide the teachings that the laser pulse emitter is a thin-disk laser system as suggested by Royon et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified by Mallozzi et al. and indicated above, since such a modification would provide user with the additional capabilities to generate the pulse of a several Joules in the femtosecond regime to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses allowing to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
With respect to claim 11, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) but fail to explicitly mention that the laser pulse emitter uses a Thulium-doped gain medium.
Royon et al. discloses a system/method for pulsed laser emitter which explicitly teaches that the laser pulse emitter uses a Thulium-doped gain medium (see paragraph 0057) in order to provide a continuously tunable source over a spectral range of emission of the Thulium around 2 micrometers for intended use (see paragraph 0085).
Rose-Petruck, Mallozzi et al. and Royon et al. disclose similar methods/apparatuses for pulsed laser emitter.
It 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 to provide teachings of the laser pulse emitter uses a Thulium-doped gain medium as suggested by Royon et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified by Mallozzi et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to provide the continuously tunable source over a spectral range of emission of the Thulium around 2 micrometers to generate the short or ultra-short light pulses allowing to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
With respect to claim 12, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) and Royon et al. teaches teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 11; wherein Royon et al. further teaches that the laser pulse emitter is a fiber laser system (see paragraph 0057).
It 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 to provide teachings that the laser pulse emitter is a fiber laser system as further suggested by Royon et al. in the method/apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modifed by Mallozzi et al. as indicated above, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to provide the continuously tunable source over a spectral range of emission of the Thulium around 2 micrometers allowing to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
With respect to claim 14, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) and Royon et al. teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 11; wherein Royon et al. further teaches that the laser pulse emitter is a thin-disk laser system.
It 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 to provide teachings that the laser pulse emitter is a thin-disk laser system as further suggested by Royon et al. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified Mallozzi et al. and as indicated above, since such a modification would provide user with the additional capabilities to generate the pulse of a several Joules in the femtosecond regime allowing to generate laser-driven high-energy X-rays as needed for intended use.
It would have been obvious to treat Rose-Petruck, Mallozi et al. and Royon et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 7, 8, 10-12 and 14 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 9 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Petruck (US PAP 2018/0206320 A1) in view of Mallozzi et al. (US Patent 4,484,339) and Royon et al. (US PAP 2019/0234346 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Optics.org (flexible slab laser gives Industry an alternative 27 March 2008; The prior art is provided by the applicant).
With respect to claim 9, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) and Royon et al. teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 7 but fail to explicitly mention that the laser pulse emitter is a slab laser system.
Optics.org. discloses a system/method for pulsed laser emitter which explicitly teaches laser pulse emitter is a slab laser system (see page 1; 3rd paragraph) in order to provide short pulse length, high repetition rate, high pulse energy and scalability while maintaining high beam quality (see page 1; 3rd paragraph).
Rose-Petruck, Mallozzi et al., Royon et al. and Optics.org. disclose related methods/apparatuses for pulsed laser emitter.
It 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 to employ teachings of the slab laser system as suggested by Optics.org. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified by Mallozze et al. and Royon et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to generate short pulse length, high repetition rate, high pulse energy and scalability while maintaining high beam quality.
With respect to claim 13, Rose-Petruck (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0012, 0016, 0017 and 0019-0028; claim 1) as modified by Mallozzi et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; see column 7, line 62 – column 9, line 38) and Royon et al. teaches the laser-produced plasma X-ray system of claim 7 but fail to explicitly mention that the laser pulse emitter is a slab laser system.
Optics.org. discloses a system/method for pulsed laser emitter which explicitly teaches laser pulse emitter is a slab laser system (see page 1; 3rd paragraph) in order to provide short pulse length, high repetition rate, high pulse energy and scalability while maintaining high beam quality (see page 1; 3rd paragraph).
Rose-Petruck, Mallozzi et al., Royon et al. and Optics.org. disclose related methods/apparatuses for pulsed laser emitter.
It 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 to employ teachings of the slab laser system as suggested by Optics.org. in the apparatus of Rose-Petruck as modified by Mallozze et al. and Royon et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to generate short pulse length, high repetition rate, high pulse energy and scalability while maintaining high beam quality.
It would have been obvious to treat Rose-Petruck, Mallozi et al., Royon et al. and Optics.org as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 9 and 13 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Strelec et al. (US PAP 2018/0323032 A1; see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraph 0020); Fermann et al. (US PAP 2009/0201575 A1); Hwu et al. (US PAP 2004/0176677 A1; see paragraph 0114); Richardson (US PAP 2002/0141536 A1; see abstract; Figs. 2-5B; pargarph 0033) and Hirose (US Patent 5,151,928; see abstract; Figs. 1-3B; column 1, line 57 – column 4, line 63) teach the variety of laser-produced plasma X-ray system comprising a metal target; a laser pulse emitter and focusing optics directing the laser pulses onto the target surface, forming a laser-driven plasma that emits X-rays.
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 IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, David J. Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ January 28, 2026