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 Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
Rejections of claims 32 and 33 and 35 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn.
With regards rejections of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to measure the gas permeability and therefore the claims recite specific, measurable upper bounds for this property. This argument is not found to be persuasive.
With regards to claim 36, gas permeability of a material depends on the gas (Biron, Michel. Thermosets and composites: material selection, applications, manufacturing and cost analysis. Elsevier, 2013.). Claiming the gas permeability of the passivation region without specifying which gas the permeability refers to is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs as a result of the structure of the passivation region or as a result of the gas passing though the passivation region. See rejections below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-7, 28-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. See rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites “wherein the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less.” Gas permeability is gas dependent. It is unclear whether infringement occurs as a result of the structure of the passivation region or as a result of the gas passing though the passivation region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mutsuaki Murakami (US 20190122780 A1), hereinafter referred to as Murakami.
Regarding claim 1, A neutron generation target, comprising: a substrate comprising a first material (metal material film 7 is, for example, titanium (para. [0095]));
a neutron generation region supported by the substrate and comprising a second material different from the first material, the second material being configured to generate neutrons when exposed to a charged particle beam (The metal film 3, whose surface collides with the proton beam, is composed of a beryllium material or a lithium material (para. [0039]));
and an intermediate layer supported by the substrate and positioned between the substrate and the neutron generation region, the intermediate layer comprising a third material different from the first and second materials, the third material being configured to sequester hydrogen and to facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate, wherein a thermal conductivity of the third material is equal to or greater than a thermal conductivity of the first material (graphite film (4)).
Graphite has a higher thermal conductivity than titanium.
Further, the specifications of the present disclosure explain “the third material being configured to sequester hydrogen and to facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate.” Further the specifications recite “The target of any one of paragraphs 1-18, wherein the third material comprises graphite.” Murakami teaches the third material can be graphite. Therefore, the third material taught by Murakami is configured to sequester hydrogen and facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate.
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, 4-7, 28-29, 31, 111, and 112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, in view of Mutsuaki Murakami (US 20190122780 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mutsuaki Murakami as evidenced by Hiroshi (JP 2012243640 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shioda teaches a neutron generation target, comprising: a substrate comprising a first material (The substrate is often made of copper (para [0006)]));
a neutron generation region supported by the substrate and comprising a second material different from the first material, the second material being configured to generate neutrons when exposed to a charged particle beam (Specifically, the present invention is a target for neutron generation, including a substrate coated with a palladium layer and a lithium layer such that a surface of the lithium layer is irradiated with charged particles to generate neutrons (para [0015]);
an intermediate layer supported by the substrate and positioned between the substrate and the neutron generation region, the intermediate layer comprising a third material different from the first and second materials ((Additionally, a palladium layer is formed between the lithium layer and the substrate (para [0007]))),
Shioda fails to teach the third material being configured to sequester hydrogen and to facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate, wherein a thermal conductivity of the third material is equal to or greater than a thermal conductivity of the first material.
However, Murakami teaches an intermediate layer supported by the substrate and positioned between the substrate and the neutron generation region, the intermediate layer comprising a third material different from the first and second materials (Fig. 4; graphite film (4)), the third material being configured to sequester hydrogen and to facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate, wherein a thermal conductivity of the third material is equal to or greater than a thermal conductivity of the first material.
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “the third material being configured to sequester hydrogen and to facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate.” Further the specifications recite “The target of any one of paragraphs 1-18, wherein the third material comprises graphite.” Murakami teaches the third material can be graphite. Therefore, the third material taught by Murakami is inherently configured to sequester hydrogen and facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate.
Shioda teaches a neutron generation target using lithium as a neutron generating layer and palladium as an intermediate layer for its ability to absorb and release hydrogen so as to prevent hydrogen from reaching the copper substrate. Murakami teaches a neutron generation target with graphite as the intermediate layer. Further, Murakami references Hiroshi (JP 2012243640 A), hereinafter referred to as Hiroshi, which teaches the issues of using palladium with a lithium thin film: “since these methods do not expect a dramatic improvement in cooling efficiency, it is considered difficult to prevent lithium melting.” To improve such cooling efficiency, Hiroshi teaches the use of graphite instead of palladium as an effective intermediate layer for efficient neutron generation because of its superior thermal diffusivity (Hiroshi; para. [0027]). Therefore, as evidenced by Hiroshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Murakami by replacing the intermediate palladium layer of Shioda with the graphite intermediate layer of Murakami.
Regarding claim 4, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the thermal conductivity of the first material is from 300 watts per meter-kelvin (Wxm1xK-1) to 1000 Wxm1xK1 (The substrate is preferably made of copper as before. As described above, although the target surface temperature as a result of proton irradiation is relatively low, the target needs to be cooled. Copper has high heat conductivity and thus is a metal suitable as a water-cooled substrate (para. [0017])).
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “In some embodiments, thermal conductivity of the substrate 120 is above 300 Wxm-1xK-1, above 400 Wxm-1xK-1, or above 500 Wxm-1xK-1, or from about 400 Wxm-1xK-1 to about 1000 Wxm-1xK-1. In some embodiments, the substrate material is copper (Cu).” Shioda teaches the first material is copper. Therefore, Shioda teaches the thermal conductivity of the first material is from 300 watts per meter-kelvin (Wxm1xK-1) to 1000 Wxm1xK1.
Regarding claim 5, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the first material is selected from copper, gold, diamond-like carbon, diamond, and copper-diamond composites (The substrate is often made of copper (para [0006)])).
Regarding claim 6, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the first material is copper (The substrate is often made of copper (para [0006)])).
Regarding claim 7, the target of any one of claims 1-6 claim 1, wherein a thickness of the substrate is from 5 millimeters (mm) to 12 mm (A disk-shaped copper substrate of φ 135 mm × 8 mm thickness was prepared (para. [0032])).
Regarding claim 28, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the target comprises an adhesion layer positioned between the intermediate layer and the neutron generation region (a barrier layer added between a lithium layer and a palladium layer (para. [0034])) and configured to facilitate bonding of the intermediate layer to the neutron generation region through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof (From this discussion, the present inventors have considered that, to maintain the capability of the target and prevent separation, suppression of the formation of a eutectic alloy at the interface between a lithium layer and a palladium layer is necessary (para [0012]-[0014])) ( For each sample, a metal film of copper, iron, nickel, cobalt, titanium, or zirconium was formed as a barrier layer on a palladium plate (dimension: 20 mm×20 mm, 2 mm thick) by plating, sputtering, (para. [0029])).
The specifications of the present disclosure “without being bound by any particular theory of speculation, it is believed that the adhesion layer 402 may be a metal or an alloy of several metals bonding the intermediate layer 302 with the neutron generation layer 110. Suitable examples of the materials of the adhesion layer include tantalum (Ta), titanium (Ti).” Shioda teaches titanium as an adhesion layer. Therefore, according to the specification of the present disclosure the adhesion layer taught by Shioda is configured to facilitate bonding of the intermediate layer to the neutron generation region through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 29, Shioda teaches the target of claim 28, wherein the adhesion layer comprises titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, holmium, nickel, palladium, platinum, zinc, silver, aluminum, gold, bismuth, or a mixture or an alloy thereof, or a carbide thereof (As a constituent material for the barrier layer, a metal selected from … nickel, titanium, and zirconium or an alloy containing any of these metals is preferable (para. [0019])).
Regarding claim 31, Shioda teaches the target of claim 28, wherein a thickness of the adhesion layer is from 100 nanometers (nm) to 2 μm (the thickness of the barrier layer is preferably within a range of 0.5 to 5 μm (para. [0020])).
Regarding claim 111, Shioda fails to teach the target of claim 1, wherein the third material comprises graphite.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the third material comprises graphite (Fig. 4; graphite film (4)).
Regarding claim 112, Shioda fails to teach the target of claim 1, wherein the third material does not form a eutectic mixture with the second material.
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “[a]s described herein, the material of the intermediate layer 302 does not react or has minimal chemical reactivity with the material of the neutron generation layer 110, such as lithium. The material of the intermediate layer 302 can be selected such that it does not substantially diffuse into, alloy with, or form a eutectic mixture with the material of the neutron generation layer 110. The specifications further disclose “wherein the third material comprises graphite.”
Shioda does teach the second material is Lithium (a lithium layer such that a surface of the lithium layer is irradiated with charged particles to generate neutrons (para [0015])).
Further Murakami teaches the third material is graphite (Fig. 4; graphite film (4)).
Therefore, as evidenced by the specifications, Shioda in view of Murakami teaches wherein the third material does not form a eutectic mixture with the second material.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda in view of Murakami, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yurevich et al. (RU 2610301 C1), hereinafter referred to as Yurevich.
Regarding claim 2, Shioda does not explicitly teach the target of claim 1, wherein the target has a width from 5 centimeters (cm) to 20 cm.
However, Yurevich teaches wherein the target has a width from 5 centimeters (cm) to 20 cm (a target diameter of 10 cm (para. [0035]). (“If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” (MPEP 2131.03)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda, to incorporate the teachings of Yurevich such that the target has a width of 10cm. Doing so allows for optimization of the number of hours of continuous radiation (Yurevich, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Shioda does not explicitly teach the target of claim 2, wherein the width is 10 cm.
However, Yurevich teaches the target of claim 2, wherein the width is 10 cm (a target diameter of 10 cm (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda, to incorporate the teachings of Yurevich such that the target has a width of 10cm. Doing so allows for optimization of the number of hours of continuous radiation (Yurevich, para. [0035]).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, in view of Murakami, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tatami et al. (WO 2018225761 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tatami.
Regarding claim 25, Shioda does not teach wherein the target comprises a sub-intermediate layer positioned between the substrate and the intermediate layer and configured to facilitate bonding of the substrate to the intermediate layer through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof.
However, Tatami teaches wherein the target comprises a sub-intermediate layer (metal layer (C) 13) positioned between the substrate and the intermediate layer (In a preferred embodiment, as shown in Fig. 1(b), the graphite film (A) 11 and the layer of raw material for radioactive substance production (B) 12 are laminated via a metal layer (C) 13. (para. [0015])) (See figure 1b below) and configured to facilitate bonding of the substrate to the intermediate layer through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof (The method for forming the metal layer (C) is not particularly limited, and any commonly used thin film formation method such as vapor deposition, sputtering, EB (Electron Beam) vapor deposition, ion plating, or plating can be used (para. [0046])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Tatami by placing the metal later C, disclosed in Tatami, in between the substrate and palladium layer, disclosed in Shioda. Doing so, allows for heat to be efficiently diffused throughout the target, and prevents target deformation (Tatami, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 26, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 25, wherein the sub-intermediate layer comprises an alloy comprising titanium, copper, and silver.
However, Tatami teaches wherein the sub-intermediate layer comprises an alloy comprising titanium, copper, and silver (The material of the metal layer (C) is preferably at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, titanium, nickel, iron, copper, tantalum, tungsten, gold, silver, platinum, and ruthenium, and more preferably gold, nickel, titanium, or tantalum (para. [0030])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Tatami by placing the metal later C, which can be made of silver, copper and titanium, disclosed in Tatami, in between the substrate and palladium layer, disclosed in Shioda. Doing so, allows for heat to be efficiently diffused throughout the target and prevents target deformation (Tatami, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 27, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 25, wherein a thickness of the sub-intermediate layer is from 1 pm to 10 pm.
However, Tatami teaches the target of claim 25, wherein a thickness of the sub-intermediate layer is from 1 μm to 10 μm (therefore, the thickness of the metal layer (C) is preferably 1 μm or less (para. [0031])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Tatami by placing the metal later C, which can be 1 μm, disclosed in Tatami, in between the substrate and palladium layer, disclosed in Shioda. Doing so ensures any reaction between the substrate and intermediate layer does not occur when the target is irradiated, and target deformation is avoided (Tatami, para. [0030]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, in view of Murakami as applied to claim 28 above, and in further view of Stora et al. (US 20110235766 A1) hereinafter referred to as Stora.
Shioda does not explicitly teach the target of claim 28, wherein the adhesion layer comprises 90 wt.% or 95 wt.% of titanium.
However, Stora teaches wherein the adhesion layer comprises 90 wt.% or 95 wt.% of titanium (In the preferred embodiment, the titanium alloy is a TA6V alloy comprising 90% Ti, 6% Al and 4% V (para. [0048])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Stora such that the adhesion layer (barrier layer disclosed in Shioda) is 90% titanium. Incorporating a material with 90% titanium is useful for creating strong bonds. Titanium does not corrode easily and is cost efficient.
Claims 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, in view of Murakami, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kaae (US 4597936 A) hereinafter referred to as Kaae.
Regarding claim 32, Shioda does not teach wherein the target comprises a passivation region supported by the substrate and positioned over the neutron generation region and configured to seal against diffusion of the second material into the passivation region and against diffusion of an ambient substance into the passivation region.
However, Kaae teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the target comprises a passivation region (outer seal layer 20) supported by the substrate and positioned over the neutron generation region (spherical core 12, formed of a lithium-containing compound) and configured to seal against diffusion of the third material into the passivation region and against diffusion of an ambient substance into the passivation region (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]) (the seal layer 20 serves as a first gas-retentive barrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20) over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda. Doing so prevents the formation of undesirable compounds that degrade the performance of the target.
Regarding claim 33, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 32, wherein the passivation region comprises lithium fluoride, lithium sulfide, lithium carbonate, magnesium fluoride, carbon, diamond-like carbon, (ultra)nanocrystalline diamond, or a polymer.
However, Kaae teaches wherein the passivation region comprises lithium fluoride, lithium sulfide, lithium carbonate, magnesium fluoride, carbon, diamond-like carbon, (ultra)nanocrystalline diamond, or a polymer (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20), which incorporates carbon, over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda. The incorporation of this ZRC layer is beneficial because the layer withstands high temperature (Kaae, para. [0010]) and is effective as a barrier for both lithium and tritium, preventing unwanted compounds to form and degrade the performance of the target.
Regarding claim 34, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 32, wherein a thickness of the passivation region is from 1 µm to 10 µm.
However, Kaae teaches the target of claim 32, wherein a thickness of the passivation region is from 1 µm to 10 µm (the ZrC seal layer 20 is deposited continuously circumferentially about the pyrocarbon-coated core to a thickness of at least about 10 microns (para. [0011])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20), which is at least 10 microns, over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda. Making the layer at least 10 microns allows the layer to prevent lithium loss while not adding to the volume of the target without affording additional benefits (Kaae; para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 35, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 32, wherein the passivation region has coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less.
However, Kaae teaches the target of claim 32, wherein the passivation region has coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20) over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda, such that the passivation region has coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less, because under proper conditions including, temperature of the passivation region (Kaae; outer seal 20), the passivation region disclosed in Kaae inherently possesses a coefficient of diffusion of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized this inherency. The condition is motivated by the goal of the outer seal 20, disclosed in Kaae, to prevent the diffusion of lithium.
Regarding claim 36, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 33, wherein the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less.
However, Kaae teaches teach the target of claim 33, wherein the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20) over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda, such that the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less, because under proper conditions including gas molecule size, temperature, and thickness of the passivation region (Kaae; outer seal 20), and moisture content, the passivation region disclosed in Kaae inherently possesses a gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized this inherency. The condition is motivated by the goal of the outer seal 20, disclosed in Kaae, to prevent the diffusion of lithium.
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 MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights