DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the specification, the drawings, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); nor do applicant’s amendments overcome the objection to the listing of references in the specification. See Information Disclosure Statement and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims over Chen have been considered but are moot because the rejection does not rely on Chen to teach rotating or adjusting the height of the particle.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims over Zheng have been considered but are not persuasive. The present rejection relies on Zheng to teach only a charged particle beam probe configured to apply a force in the vertical direction (Zheng, page 5645, column 2, paragraph below FIG. 2, lines 14-17; see claim 17 below). The rejection does not rely on Zheng to teach rotating the particle, and the limitations for which Zheng is relied upon (i.e., claim 17) do not require a particular mechanism for adjusting a height of the particle.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims over Xu have been considered but are moot because the present rejection does not rely on Xu.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims over Oleshko have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, paragraphs 1-2 on page 240 of Oleshko refers to four different references regarding particle rotation through orbital angular momentum transfer:
Gnanavel and Möbus, 2012 (“In situ synthesis of cobalt nanocrystal hierarchies in a transmission electron microscope”), hereinafter Gnanavel and Möbus;
Verbeeck, Tian and Van Tendeloo, 2012 (“How to Manipulate Nanoparticles with an Electron Beam?”), hereinafter Verbeeck, Tian and Van Tendeloo;
Lloyd, Babiker, and Yuan, 2012 (“Quantised orbital angular momentum transfer and magnetic dichroism in the interaction of electron vortices with matter”), hereinafter Lloyd, Babiker, and Yuan; and
Löffler and Schattschneider, 2012 (“Elastic propagation of fast electron vortices through crystals”), hereinafter Löffler and Schattschneider.
Lloyd, Babiker, and Yuan makes no disclosure of a particular medium in/on which the particle to be rotated is disposed.
Gnanavel and Möbus; Verbeeck, Tian and Van Tendeloo; and Löffler and Schattschneider do disclose particles disposed on supporting films and/or in crystals; however, Verbeeck, Tian and Van Tendeloo also discloses replacing the supporting film with a liquid cell, with the associated benefit of reduced friction allowing higher rotational velocity (Verbeeck, Tian and Van Tendeloo, page 1116, column 1, paragraph beginning “Several strategies…”). This reduced friction strategy is also referenced in Oleshko at page 241, paragraph preceding “4. Plasmon Resonances and Electron Beam Trapping of Nanoparticles”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Oleshko discloses rotating a particle in a fluid medium through an angular momentum transfer of a charged particle beam probe to the particle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen using the teachings of Oleshko. The disclosure of Oleshko shows that the angular momentum transfer from a charged particle beam probe to a particle causes the particle to rotate, regardless of whether the particle is in a solid (see, e.g., Oleshko, page 240, paragraph 1, “a single 3-nm Au particle rotating on a 15-nm-thick
S
i
3
N
4
supporting film under vortex electron beams”) or liquid (see, e.g., Oleshko, page 229, “a passing electron induced a torque on the solid nanoparticle, making it rotate in a liquid alloy by changing its angular momentum”) medium. Therefore, the charged particle beam probe of Oleshko would cause particles to rotate through angular momentum transfer if said charged particle beam probe was utilized in the system disclosed by Chen. Further still, Oleshko supplies motivation to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Oleshko, e.g., the angular momentum transfer from charged particle beam probes is highly efficient (Oleshko, page 240, paragraphs 1-2) and enhances the precision of particle manipulation at very small dimensions (Oleshko, page 248, point 5).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., “Ashikin”, page 1) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Furthermore, the reference to “Ashikin” does not include sufficient information to be considered as a proper citation, e.g., patent or patent application identifiers or non-patent literature citation information such as an article title and other publication information.
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 38 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 38 recites the limitation "controlling one or more of the one or more gradient forces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted "controlling one or more of the one or more gradient forces" to mean "controlling one or more of the one or more gradient force[[s]]".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 18, 21-22, 26-28, 31, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (“Electron beam manipulation of gold nanoparticles external to the beam”, 2014), hereinafter Chen, in view of Oleshko et al. (“Chapter Three - Electron Tweezers as a Tool for High-Precision Manipulation of Nanoobjects”, 2013), hereinafter Oleshko.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method for manipulating a tiny object (page 31652, ‘Introduction’ paragraph 1), comprising:
providing one or more charged particle beams (page 31652, ‘Introduction’ last paragraph);
forming a non-uniform charge distribution in a fluid medium (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ last paragraph, lines 3-6); and
applying, to a tiny object, a gradient force formed by the non-uniform charge distribution (page 31655, column 1, last paragraph).
Chen fails to disclose that the method further comprises one or more of: adjusting a height of the tiny object by adjusting a vertical position of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region; rotating the tiny object by adjusting an angle of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region relative to the tiny object; or rotating the tiny object through an angular momentum transfer of a charged particle beam probe to the tiny object.
However, Oleshko discloses rotating the tiny object through an angular momentum transfer of a charged particle beam probe to the tiny object (page 240, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen to include rotating the tiny object through an angular momentum transfer of a charged particle beam probe to the tiny object, based on the teachings of Oleshko that the angular momentum transfer is highly efficient and results in faster rotation (Oleshko, page 240, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses that the charged particle beam causes the tiny object to be charged (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ paragraph 2, lines 1-3), and the gradient force is a Coulomb force (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ paragraph 1; while Chen does not explicitly refer to the force as a Coulomb force, Dictionary.com defines ‘Coulomb force’ as ‘electrostatic force’).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses that the charged particle beam is an electron beam (page 31652, ‘Introduction’ last paragraph, e-beam).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that the charged particle beam is a vortex beam (page 240, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the charged particle beam is a vortex beam, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that electron vortex beams enable efficient exchange of orbital angular momentum (Oleshko, page 240, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses that the non-uniform charge distribution is generated by the charged particle beam passing through a region of the fluid medium (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ last paragraph, lines 3-4), and is defined by a shape of a charged particle beam probe (FIGs. 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses that the non-uniform charge distribution is defined by a shape of a charged particle beam probe scanning region (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ last paragraph, lines 3-6).
In addition, Oleshko discloses that the non-uniform charge distribution is generated by the charged particle beam scanning a region of the fluid medium (page 220, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the non-uniform charge distribution is generated by the charged particle beam scanning a region of the fluid medium, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that this enables the trapping of multiple nanoparticles within the beam (Oleshko, page 223, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region surrounds or at least partially surrounds the tiny object (page 240, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region surrounds or at least partially surrounds the tiny object, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that this makes it easier to observe the interaction between the beam and the object (page 240, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that a shape of the charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region in a plane of the tiny object is a ring, and the tiny object is located in the ring (page 240, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that a shape of the charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region in a plane of the tiny object is a ring, and the tiny object is located in the ring, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that this makes it easier to observe the interaction between the beam and the object (page 240, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that a shape of the charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region in a plane of the tiny object is an arc (Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘arc’ as “something arched or curved”; FIG. 3.14 of Oleshko shows the curved charged particle beam probe), and the tiny object is located on one side of a circle center of the arc (FIG. 3.14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that a shape of the charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region in a plane of the tiny object is an arc, and the tiny object is located on one side of a circle center of the arc, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that this makes it easier to observe the interaction between the beam and the object (page 240, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses that a ratio of a size of a probe or probe scanning region to a size of the tiny object in a plane of the tiny object is about 1.5-1:1 (page 31653, column 1, first paragraph defines the probe size diameter as 50 nm; page 31653, ‘E-beam manipulation of in situ synthesized gold nanoparticles’ paragraph 1 defines the tiny object diameter as 48 nm; therefore, the ratio of probe size to tiny object is 50 / 48 = 1.04).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that the gradient force is used for capturing the tiny object (page 234, paragraph following equation (14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the gradient force is used for capturing the tiny object, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that the gradient force advantageously provides stable trapping of the particle (Oleshko, page 234, paragraph following equation (14)).
Regarding claim 21, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses changing the gradient force by changing one or more in a following group: a dose rate of the charged particle beam, the shape of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region, and the position of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region relative to the tiny object (page 31654, column 1, paragraph beginning “A systematic study…”).
Regarding claim 22, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses moving a position of the tiny object horizontally by adjusting a horizontal position of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region (page 31653, column 2, second paragraph from last).
Regarding claim 26, Chen discloses a device for manipulating a tiny object (page 31652, ‘Introduction’ paragraph 1), comprising:
one or more charged particle guns, configured to provide a charged particle beam (page 31652, ‘Introduction’ last paragraph); and
a fluid medium chamber, configured to accommodate a fluid medium and a tiny object (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ last paragraph, lines 1-6);
wherein the charged particle beam forms a non-uniform charge distribution in the fluid medium within the fluid medium chamber (page 31655, ‘Discussion of e-beam manipulation mechanism’ last paragraph, lines 3-6), such that a gradient force is applied to the tiny object (page 31655, column 1, last paragraph).
Chen fails to disclose an adjustment device, configured to adjust the charged particle beam from the one or more charged particle guns; wherein the charged particle beam is adjusted to form the non-uniform charge distribution, and wherein the adjustment device is configured to perform one or more of following actions: adjust a vertical position of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region to adjust a height of the tiny object; adjust an angle of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region relative to the tiny object to rotate the tiny object; or transfer an angular momentum of a charged particle beam probe to the tiny object to rotate the tiny object.
However, Oleshko discloses an adjustment device, configured to adjust the charged particle beam from the one or more charged particle guns (page 240, paragraph 1);
wherein the charged particle beam is adjusted to form the non-uniform charge distribution (page 240, paragraph 1), and
wherein the adjustment device is configured to transfer an angular momentum of a charged particle beam probe to the tiny object to rotate the tiny object (page 240, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen to include an adjustment device, configured to adjust the charged particle beam from the one or more charged particle guns; wherein the charged particle beam is adjusted to form the non-uniform charge distribution, and wherein the adjustment device is configured to transfer an angular momentum of a charged particle beam probe to the tiny object to rotate the tiny object, based on the teachings of Oleshko that adjustment through electron vortex beams enables efficient exchange of orbital angular momentum and faster rotation (Oleshko, page 240, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 26 discloses the device according to claim 26.
In addition, Chen discloses that the charged particle gun comprises an electron gun (page 31652, ‘Introduction’ last paragraph, e-beam).
Regarding claim 28, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 26 discloses the device according to claim 26.
In addition, Chen discloses that the fluid medium chamber comprises a liquid cell (page 31652, ‘Experimental’ paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 31, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 26 discloses the device according to claim 26.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that the adjustment device comprises a vortex beam device configured to generate a charged particle beam carrying orbital angular momentum (page 240, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the adjustment device comprises a vortex beam device configured to generate a charged particle beam carrying orbital angular momentum, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that electron vortex beams enable efficient exchange of orbital angular momentum (Oleshko, page 240, paragraph 1), and the angular momentum transfer results in faster rotation (Oleshko, page 240, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 37, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that a plurality of non-uniform charge distributions are formed in the fluid medium, and the plurality of non-uniform charge distributions apply a plurality of gradient forces to a plurality of portions of the tiny object (page 248, paragraph numbered 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that a plurality of non-uniform charge distributions are formed in the fluid medium, and the plurality of non-uniform charge distributions apply a plurality of gradient forces to a plurality of portions of the tiny object, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that the plurality of gradient forces on different portions of the tiny object can be advantageously used to apply large amounts of rotational energy to the object (Oleshko, page 248, paragraph numbered 5).
Regarding claim 38, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses controlling one or more of the one or more gradient forces to change a motion state of the tiny object (page 31654, column 1, paragraph beginning “A systematic study…”; the motion state, i.e., attracted, repulsed, or static, is changed by the modification of the gradient force due to changing the relative positions between the beam probe and the tiny object).
Regarding claim 39, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Oleshko discloses that at least one charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region has a corresponding shape with the surface of the tiny object (page 40, paragraph 2, and page 242, paragraph 1: the ring-shaped charged particle beam probe corresponds to the spherical tiny object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that at least one charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region has a corresponding shape with the surface of the tiny object, based on the additional teachings of Oleshko that this makes it easier to observe the interaction between the beam and the object (page 240, paragraph 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0035700 A1), hereinafter Tseng.
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In addition, Chen discloses that a shape of a charged particle beam probe or probe scanning region in a vertical direction comprises a neck region (FIG. 1) configured to apply a gradient force (FIG. 1C).
Chen in view of Oleshko fails to disclose that the gradient force is in the vertical direction.
However, Zheng discloses a charged particle beam probe configured to apply a force in the vertical direction (page 5645, column 2, paragraph below FIG. 2, lines 14-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the charged particle beam probe is configured to apply a force in the vertical direction, based on the teachings of Zheng that this provides versatility across applications such as building materials architectures and functional devices through precise manipulation of nanoparticles (Zheng, page 5644, column 1, paragraph 10).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Prather et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0285803 A1), hereinafter Prather.
Regarding claim 29, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 26 discloses the device according to claim 26.
Chen in view of Oleshko fails to disclose that the adjustment device comprises one or more electromagnetic lenses.
However, Prather discloses that the adjustment device comprises one or more electromagnetic lenses (paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the adjustment device comprises one or more electromagnetic lenses, based on the teachings of Prather that this allows for translation-invariance imaging for simplifying the motion of the trap (Prather, paragraph 0009).
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Oleshko as respectively applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of Howe et al. (“Effects of heat and electron irradiation on the melting behavior of Al-Si alloy particles and motion of the Al nanosphere within”, 2004), hereinafter Howe.
Regarding claim 30, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 26 discloses the device according to claim 26.
Chen in view of Oleshko fails to disclose that the adjustment devices comprises one or more diaphragms.
However, Howe discloses that the adjustment devices comprises one or more diaphragms (page 108, column 2, paragraph 2, condenser aperture).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the adjustment devices comprises one or more diaphragms, based on the teachings of Howe that this enables observation of the dynamic behavior of the nanoparticle while the particle was irradiated with the charged particle beam probe (Howe, page 108, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 32, Chen in view of Oleshko as applied to claim 31 discloses the device according to claim 31.
Chen in view of Oleshko fails to disclose that the vortex beam device comprises one or more of a computer-generated hologram diaphragm, an annular diaphragm, and an arc-shaped diaphragm.
However, Howe discloses that the vortex beam device comprises one or more of a computer-generated hologram diaphragm, an annular diaphragm, and an arc-shaped diaphragm (page 108, column 2, paragraph 2, annular condenser aperture).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chen in view of Oleshko to include that the vortex beam device comprises one or more of a computer-generated hologram diaphragm, an annular diaphragm, and an arc-shaped diaphragm, based on the teachings of Howe that this enables observation of the dynamic behavior of the nanoparticle while the particle was irradiated with the charged particle beam probe (Howe, page 108, column 2, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881