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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 03/04/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-4, 10, 15-16, 18 and 20 has /have been amended, claim 14 has /have been cancelled previously. Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-13 and 15-20 are as follow.
The previous 112(b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment with no new matter added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, under claim 1, the “optical elements” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A. Claim limitation “a beam shaping system” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “shaping” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 7 last line, Fig. 1, a beam shaping system 500.
B. Claim limitation “optical elements… to vary a shape of the irradiation area” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “elements” coupled with functional language “to vary a shape” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 34 line 26, a diffractive optical element.
C. Claim limitation “a movement system” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “movement” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 7 last line, Figs. 1-3, a movement system 200.
D. Claim limitation “a controller that controls” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “controls” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 8 first line, Figs. 1 and 11, a controller 600.
E. Claim limitation “a condensing optical system which emits the beam” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “emits” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 6 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 34 line 8, Fig. 6, condensing optical system 82.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a condensing optical system” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a condensing optical system” and optical elements mentioned in line 6 of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 10, 12-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (JP 08 156106 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2003/0132207 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Akino discloses a shaping apparatus that forms a three-dimensional shaped object, the apparatus comprising:
a beam shaping system (a setting light irradiating mechanism with setting light 3, Abstract, Fig 1) that has a beam irradiation section (see details in Figs 1-4) which emits a beam and a material supply section which supplies shaping material (powder… supplied, [0015]) to an irradiation area formed on the shaped object by the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section (to provide a three-dimensional object fabrication method which has dimensional accuracy and shape stability, [0006]), the beam irradiation section including optical elements (light irradiation optical system, [0009], Fig 1) that are movable to vary a shape of the irradiation area formed on the shaped object by the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section (a curing light irradiation mechanism is used to locally cure the flowing out photocurable resin while setting the spatial position of the composite nozzle, [0008]; the resin supply nozzle 2 and the light irradiation optical system are integrated is automatically controlled, [0009], Fig 1);
a controller that controls the beam shaping system (automatically controlled with a computer, [Abstract]) to apply a shaping to the shaped object using the shaping material (automatically forming a three-dimensional shape by computer control, [0001], the controller being configured to:
control the optical elements of the beam irradiation section to cause a length of the irradiation area in a first direction to be greater than a width of the irradiation area in a second direction intersecting the first direction so that the shape of the irradiation area is elongated in the first direction ([0006-0009], Fig 1, Clearly, the controller is capable of “control the optical elements of the beam irradiation section to cause a length of the irradiation area in a first direction to be greater than a width of the irradiation area in a second direction intersecting the first direction so that the shape of the irradiation area is elongated in the first direction” as claimed), and
control the material supply section, based on the shape of the irradiation area, a supply area of the shaping material supplied by the material supply section (a curing light irradiation mechanism is used to locally cure the flowing out photocurable resin while setting the spatial position of the composite nozzle, [0008]; the resin supply nozzle 2 and the light irradiation optical system are integrated is automatically controlled, [0009], Fig 1, Clearly, the controller is capable of “control the material supply section, based on the shape of the irradiation area, a supply area of the shaping material supplied by the material supply section” as claimed).
Akino discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose a movement system that performs a relative movement of the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section and a mount section on which the shaped object is mounted; and the controller that controls the movement system,
Park et al. teach a system with a computer numerical control (CNC) controller (see Abstract) to control a movement system (a table adapted to conduct a three-dimensional movement, table 104, [0020, 0042], Fig 8) performs a relative movement of the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section (a laser device 100 for irradiating a laser beam, a table 104 for conducting a rotating movement and a three-dimensional movement, [0042]. Note: “the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section” taught by Akino already) and a mount section on which the shaped object is mounted (a polishing pad 10 to be polished is mounted on the table 104, [0042], Fig 8); and the controller that controls the movement system (a computer numerical control (CNC) controller 102 for controlling the laser device 100 and the table 104, [0042], Fig 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akino with Park’s further teaching of a movement system that performs a relative movement of the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section and a mount section on which the shaped object is mounted; and the controller that controls the movement system; because Park teaches, in [Abstract], of providing a control system to control a laser device and a table for processing convenience during laser treatment.
Claim 2, wherein the length of the irradiation area is variable (Clearly, “the length of the irradiation area is” capable of to be “variable” as claimed, Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 3, wherein the width of the irradiation area along is variable (Clearly, “the width of the irradiation area is” capable of to be “variable” as claimed, Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 4, wherein the controller is configure to control the movement system and the beam shaping system based on data related to the shaped object that is a shaping target (a three-dimensional object 6 of a manufacturing target is formed while it is laminated, [Abstract], Akino; and a computer numerical control (CNC) controller; and driving a laser device adapted to irradiate a laser beam and a table adapted to conduct a three-dimensional movement and rotation, [0020], Park et al.).
Claim 5, wherein the data related to the shaped object is data related to a three-dimensional data of the shaped object (see Fig 1, Akino).
Claim 10, wherein the shape of the irradiation area of the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section is a slit shape extending along the first direction which intersects with a direction of the relative movement (Clearly, “the shape of the irradiation area of the beam emitted from the beam irradiation section is” capable of to be “a slit shape extending along the first direction which intersects with a direction of the relative movement” as claimed, see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 12, wherein the first direction is a direction intersecting with a direction of the relative movement (Clearly, “the first direction is” capable of to be “a direction intersecting with a direction of the relative movement” as claimed, see Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 13, wherein the shape of the irradiation area of the beam is a slit shape (Clearly, “the shape of the irradiation area of the beam is” capable of to be “a slit shape” as claimed, see Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 15, wherein the beam irradiation section is configured to change the length of the irradiation area (Clearly, “the beam irradiation section is” capable of “configured to change the length of the irradiation area” as claimed, see Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 17, wherein the first direction intersects a movement direction by the movement system (Clearly, “the first direction” capable of “intersects a movement direction by the movement system” as claimed, Fig 1, Akino and Fig 8, Park et al.; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to control the material supply section to change a size of the supply area of the shaping material along the first direction (the resin supply nozzle 2 and the light irradiation optical system are integrated is automatically controlled, [0009], Fig 1, Clearly, “the controller is” capable of “configured to control the material supply section to change a size of the supply area of the shaping material along the first direction” as claimed, Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (JP 08 156106 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2003/0132207 A1) as shown above, further in view of Saito (JPH 091674 A).
Regarding Claims 6-9, Akino in view of Park et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above, except does not disclose Claims 6-9.
Saito further teaches a system (shaping apparatus 2, [0012], Fig 1), and Claim 6, wherein the beam irradiation section (where laser 4 work on container 38, [0012, 0016], Fig 1) includes a condensing optical system which emits the beam (convex lens 20 and the convex lens, 24, [0014], Fig 1), and
the controller is configured to change an intensity distribution of the beam (the intensity of the laser light is changed, [0004]. Note: “the controller” taught by Akino already) within a predetermined plane at an exit surface side of the condensing optical system (see Fig 1).
Claim 7, wherein the movement system relatively moves a target surface on which a target portion for shaping (a table adapted to conduct a three-dimensional movement, table 104, [0020, 0042], Fig 8, Park et al.) is set by performing the relative movement of the beam from the beam irradiation section and the mount section (a polishing pad 10 to be polished is mounted on the table 104, [0042], Fig 8, Park et al.) on which the shaped object is mounted (to provide a three-dimensional object fabrication method which has dimensional accuracy and shape stability, [0006], Fig 1, Akino).
Claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to change the intensity distribution of the beam in the predetermined plane (the intensity of the laser light is changed, [0004], Fig 1) while supplying the shaping material to the target portion (the resin supply nozzle 2 at an appropriate flow rate, [0009], Fig 1, Akino).
Claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to change the intensity distribution of the beam in the predetermined plane (the intensity of the laser light is changed, [0004], Fig 1) in a period during which the relative movement of the beam and the target surface occurs (a laser device 100 for irradiating a laser beam, a table 104 for conducting a rotating movement and a three-dimensional movement, [0042], Park et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akino in view of Park et al. with Saito’s further teaching of Claims 6-9; because Saito teaches, in [Abstract], of providing a photo-setting molding method in which optimal curing diameter and curing depth can be obtained at each part in each layer of a product.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (JP 08 156106 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2003/0132207 A1) as shown above, further in view of Jones et al. (US 2015/0140230 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, Akino in view of Park et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above, except does not disclose Claims 11 and 16.
Jones et al. further teach Claim 11, wherein the shaping apparatus is a Directed Energy Deposition (DED)-type shaping system (the processing head 200 may be utilized to provide other processes… including additive manufacturing, 3D printing, and directed energy deposition, Fig 2, [0137, 0180]).
Claim 16, wherein the beam irradiation section includes a mirror whose tilt is changeable (a reflector, such as a mirror 208, arranged to move an incoming laser beam 210, [0139], Fig 2), and
the controller (controller 106, [0134], Fig 1. Note: taught by Akino already) is configured to change the length of the irradiation by changing the tilt of the mirror (Clearly, “the controller is” capable of “configured to change the length of the irradiation by changing the tilt of the mirror” as claimed, Fig 1, Akino; Fig 2, Jones et al.; see MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akino in view of Park et al. with Jones et al.’s further teaching of Claims 11 and 16; because Jones et al. teach, in [0007], of providing a machine tool with a clamping mechanism and different processing heads for processing convenience during operation.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (JP 08 156106 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2003/0132207 A1) as shown above, further in view of Ridenour (US 5,293,771).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Akino in view of Park et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above, except does not disclose Claims 19-20.
Ridenour further teaches Claim 19, wherein the material supply section (Valves 27, 28, and 29 are connected between the manifold and a first gas source 31, a second gas source 32, and a gas tank 33, respectively, Col 1 line 65-67, Fig 1. Note: taught by Akino already) includes a plurality of material supply ports (see material supply ports connected to 31-33, Fig 1) arranged along the first direction (Clearly, “the material supply section” capable of “arranged along the first direction” as claimed, see Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 20, wherein the controller (controller 22, Fig 1. Note: taught by Akino already) is configured to select which one of more of the material supply ports (see material supply ports connected to 31-33, Fig 1) supply the shaping material (a first gas source 31, a second gas source 32, and a gas tank 33, Fig 1. Note: “the shaping material” taught by Akino already) from among the plurality of material supply ports (see Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akino in view of Park et al. with Ridenour’s further teaching of Claims 19-20; because Ridenour teaches, in Col 2 line 19-22, of providing an excellent controller to control the various valves of the selector valve means for processing convenience during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of claims 1-13 and 15-20. Since the combination of cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01); and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114).
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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights