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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 04/30/2026 to the non-final Office action of 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1-20 follows.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the claim limitation “rib” (e.g., claims 1, 5, 12, and 14), the Office notes that based on Applicant’s figures and specification that “rib” simply means the outer edge of the molding compound (3) instead of some sort of projection/protrusion as typically understood in the art since that is what appears to be depicted in figures 1 and 7 of Applicant’s figures, and especially since claim 1 recites “said rib being formed by the molding compound”. Furthermore paragraphs [0046], [0048], and [0054] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification) appear to define and describe “rib” as the outer edge of the molding compound (3). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation “a rib” was interpreted to mean the outer edge of the molding compound in order to stay consistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding the “web” as recited in claim 14, the Office notes that the limitations was interpreted to mean “wall” since that is what appears to be depicted in figure 7 of Applicant’s figures. Applicant’s specification does not clearly outline what exactly what “webs” are, and thus based on figure 7 (which is the only figure that shows the “webs”), the “web” appears to be a wall portion of the cooling plate. Paragraphs [0052] and [0054] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification) are the only instances in which Applicant describes the “webs”, but the description does not clearly define what the intended scope of “webs” is supposed to be, and thus further supporting the Offices interpretation that “webs” is simply supposed to mean a wall/wall portion. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation “web” was interpreted to mean “wall”/“wall portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) in view of Mamitsu (US 20060096299).
Regarding claim 1, Grassmann discloses (Figs.1 and 3):
A semiconductor module assembly comprising at least one semiconductor module (100) having at least one semiconductor chip (102), which is encapsulated substantially parallelepipedally (See Fig.3) by a molding compound (104) and has a plurality of electrical terminals (118) electrically connected ([0083]) to the at least one semiconductor chip (102), the plurality of electrical terminals (118) projecting from the molding compound (104) (Terminals Projecting from Molding Compound: See Fig.3), a rib (outer edge of 104) running peripherally along lateral end faces (See Figure Below) of the at least one semiconductor module (100) (See Figure Below: the outer edge of 104 run peripherally along the lateral end faces of 100, and is formed by 104), said rib being formed by the molding compound (104), at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) on at least a top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and/or a bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) of the at least one semiconductor module (100), the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) being enclosed by molding (See Fig.1) in the molding compound (104), but at least partly uncovered by the molding compound (104) (See Figs.1 and 3, [0082], and [0084]: a portion of 108 and/or 110 is not covered by 104, but 108 and/or 110 is also enclosed by 104 due to 108 and/or 110 being embedded in 104), at least one cooling rib structure (158) fixedly connected to (See Fig.1) the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) on the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and/or the bottom face (Fig.1: bottom face of 104) of the at least one semiconductor module (100), at least one first housing part (152), the at least one first housing part (152) surrounding (See Fig.1) the at least one cooling rib structure (158) and is connected to (See Fig.1) the at least one semiconductor module (100) at the rib (outer edge of 104), thereby allowing access for coolant ([0077]: "a cooling cavity 154 for temporarily accommodating flowing cooling fluid") to the at least one cooling rib structure (158), a sealing element (159) arranged between the at least one first housing part (152) and the rib (outer edge of 104) (Fig.1: 159 is between 152 and 104, including the rib defined by 104).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Grassmann does not disclose:
The at least one first housing part defining an opening on a first end face of the lateral end faces and an opening at a second end face of the lateral end faces opposite the first end face, thereby allowing access for coolant to the cooling rib structure, two second housing parts, one second housing part being connected to the at least one first housing part on the first end face and a further second housing part being connected to the at least one first housing part on the second end face, wherein the two second housing parts combine to include a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet at the first and second end faces.
Mamitsu however teaches (Figs.3A-4 and [0146]: the connection means shown in Fig.3 can be applied to Fig.4, and thus the elements of Figs.3A-B can also be utilized):
The at least one first housing part (52a) defining an opening (See Figure Below) at a first end face (See Figure Below) of the lateral end faces (Fig.4: all of the sides of 52a will define the lateral end faces) and an opening (See Figure Below) at a second end face (See Figure Below) of the lateral end faces opposite the first end face, thereby allowing access for coolant ([0096]: the refrigerant will define the coolant) to the cooling rib structure (83) (Fig.4 and [0112]-[0113]: in the assembled state, 83 will have access to the coolant flowing to 53a via the openings of the at least one first housing part), two second housing parts (80a and b), one second housing part (80a) being connected to the at least one first housing part (52a) on the first end face (See Fig.3A: 80a will be connected to the front face/first end face of 52a) and a further second housing part (80b) being connected to the at least one first housing part (52a) on the second end face (Fig.3A: 80b will be connected, at least indirectly, to the rear face/second end face of 52a), wherein the two second housing parts (80a and 80b) combine (See Fig.3B) to include a coolant inlet (81a) and a coolant outlet (81b).
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
924
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mamitsu to modify the device of Grassmann such that the at least one first housing part defines an opening on a first end face of the lateral end faces and an opening on a second end face of the lateral end faces opposite the first end face so that coolant has access to the cooling rib structure, and such that it has a two second housing parts that are arranged so that one second housing part and a further second housing part are respectively connected to the first end face and the second end face of the at least one first housing part, as claimed, in order to provide an arrangement that can reduce the overall size as taught by Mamitsu ([0147]) while also still providing an efficient means of cooling the at least one semiconductor module.
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
Wherein the two second housing parts combine to include a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet at the first and second end faces.
Mamitsu however presents another embodiment that teaches (Figs.7A-B):
Wherein the two second housing parts (80c and e) combine to include a coolant inlet (81c) and a coolant outlet (81e) at the first and second end faces (Fig.7A: end faces of 80d,f that face 80c and 80e will define the first and second end faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of the additional embodiment of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the two second housing parts combine to include a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet at the first and second end faces, as claimed, in order to provide an arrangement that further optimize the overall cooling capabilities since the arrangement can provide a simple and efficient means of cooling a greater number of semiconductor modules as taught by Mamitsu ([0172]).
Regarding claim 2, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) is a metallic material ([0079] and [0081]: 114 of both 108 and 110 is a metallic material).
Regarding claim 3, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the at least one cooling plate (110) is copper ([0079] and [0081]: 114 of both 108 and 110 is a copper layer).
Regarding claim 5, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) extends across the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and/or the bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) of the at least one semiconductor module (100) as far as the rib (outer edge of 104) on the lateral end faces (See Figure of Claim 1) of the at least one semiconductor module (100) (Fig.1: 100 extends across the top face of 104, and thus of 100, and extends as far as the rib on the lateral end faces of 100).
Regarding claim 11, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the lateral end faces (See Figure of Claim 1) extend between the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and the bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) (See Figure of Claim 1: the lateral end faces are between the top face and bottom face).
Regarding claim 12, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the rib (outer edge of 104) extends fully around all of the lateral end faces (See Figure of Claim 1) (See Figure of Claim 1: the rib has to extend fully around all of the lateral end faces since the lateral end faces are used to define the rib).
Regarding claim 13, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the at least one first housing part (152) includes an opening (154) thorough which the at least one cooling rib structure (158) contact the at least cooling plate (108 and/or 110).
Regarding claim 14, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the at least one first housing part (152) includes a web (bottom wall portion of the upper 152) surrounding the opening (154), wherein the web (bottom wall portion of the upper 152) at least partially overlaps the rib (outer edge of 104) (Fig.1: the bottom wall portion that defines the “web” overlaps with the outer edge of 104 that defines the “rib”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) in view of Mamitsu (US 20060096299), or alternatively over Grassmann and Mamitsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergmann (US 20160178282).
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that the limitation as recited in claim 4 (e.g., “wherein the at least one first housing part is a strand-cast part”) does not have actual patentable weight since the claims are product-by-process claims that do not affect the patentability of the product. In product-by- process claims, “one a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Even though the claims are limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not the recited process steps which must be established. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a "[p]roduct-by-process claim, although recited subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”, In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentability distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Examiner emphasizes that the end product of Grassmann as modified by Mamitsu will result in a first housing part that is made out of some material that will be connected to the semiconductor module and resulting in the claimed device as respectively claimed in claim 1.
Alternatively, Bergmann teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein a housing part ([0028]) is a strand-cast part ([0028]: continuous casting and strand-casting are synonyms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Bergmann to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the at least one first housing part is a strand-cast part, as claimed, in order to provide a cost-efficient means of producing the first housing part as taught by Bergmann ([0028]).
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) and Mamitsu (US 20060096299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 9449895).
Regarding claim 15, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the at least one first housing part (152) includes an upper first housing part (the upper 152) and a lower first housing part (152).
However, modified Grassmann does not teach:
See next page→
Wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises more than one semiconductor module that is arranged end-to-end within a single upper first housing part and lower first housing part.
Mamitsu however further teaches:
Wherein the at least one semiconductor module (1a) comprises more than one semiconductor module (Figs.3B-4: there is more than one 1a) that is arranged end-to-end (Fig.3B: 1a is defined by a plurality of semiconductor modules that are arranged end-to-end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the at least one semiconductor module has more than one semiconductor module that is arranged end-to-end, as claimed, in order to further improve the overall electrical capabilities due to the increased number of semiconductor modules.
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Wherein more than one semiconductor module is arranged end-to-end within a single upper first housing part and lower first housing part.
Yoo however teaches (Figs.1-3B):
Wherein the at least one semiconductor module (100) comprises more than one semiconductor module (Figs.1-2B: there is more than one 100) that is arranged end-to-end (Figs.2A-B: and Col.3 Lns.26-29: each 100 is arranged end-to-end within 108) within a single upper first housing part (116) and lower first housing part (122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Yoo to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the upper first housing part and lower first housing part contain the more than one semiconductor module that is arranged end-to-end, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities (i.e., a single housing can house multiple semiconductor modules in order to cool the semiconductor modules, and thus simplifying the assembly needed cool the plurality of semiconductor modules).
Regarding claim 16, the additional embodiment of Mamitsu further teaches:
Wherein the one second housing part (80c) at the first end face (Figs.7A-B: end faces of 80d,f that face 80c will define the first end face) and the further second housing part (80e) at the second end face (Figs.7A-B: end faces of 80d,f that face 80e will define the second end face) are attached at opposite ends of the housing (80d and 80f) (Figs.7A and B: with respect to 80d and 80f, 80c and 80e are on opposite ends of 80d and 80f).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of the additional embodiment of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the second housing part at the first end face and the second housing part at the second end face are attached at opposite ends of the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, the additional embodiment of Mamitsu further teaches:
Wherein one (80c) of the two second parts (80c and 80e) defines the inlet (81c) and the other (80e) of the two second housing parts (80c and 80e) defines the outlet (81e), where the same inlet (81c) and outlet (81e) are provided for each of the at least one semiconductor modules (1b) (Figs.7A-B: the same inlet and outlet are used for all of the semiconductor modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of the additional embodiment of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that one of the second parts defines the inlet and the other defines the outlet so that the same inlet and outlet are provided for each of the semiconductor modules, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) and Mamitsu (US 20060096299) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ushijima (US 20160104654).
Regarding claim 17, modified Grassmann does not explicitly teach:
Wherein each semiconductor module of the more than one semiconductor module has dedicated cooling ribs, wherein the cooling ribs are aligned to define a continuous path for the coolant entering and exiting through the open first and second end faces.
Ushijima however teaches (Figs.12 and 15, and [0063]: Fig.15 is an extension of figures 12-14, and thus the relevant portions of figure 12 can be used in figure 15 as well):
Wherein each semiconductor module of the more than one semiconductor module (122 and/or 124) has dedicated cooling ribs (30), wherein the cooling ribs (30) are aligned to define a continuous path (Fig.15 and [0063]: “so as to form one continuous cooling medium passage”) for the coolant ([0063]: “cooing medium”) entering and exiting through the open first and second end faces (Figs.12 and 15: the faces of 122 and/or 124 that faces 44 will define the “open first and second faces”).
See next page→
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Ushijima to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that each semiconductor module of the more than one semiconductor module has dedicated cooling ribs, and such that the cooling ribs align to define a continuous path for the coolant entering and exiting through the open first and second end faces, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling efficiency due to each of the semiconductor modules having cooling ribs that increase the overall heat dissipation area, and thus increasing the total heat dissipation area.
Regarding claim 18, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the upper first housing part (the upper 152) and the lower first housing part (the lower 152) each include an opening (154) through which the at least one cooling rib structure (158) and the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) of the semiconductor module (100) contact each other (Fig.1: the 154 in each 152 allows 158 to contact to their corresponding 108 and 110).
However modified Grassmann does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part each include multiple openings through which the at least one cooling rib structure and the at least one cooling plate of respective semiconductor modules of the more than semiconductor module contact each other.
Ushijima however teaches (Figs.12 and 15, and [0063]: Fig.15 is an extension of figures 12-14, and thus the relevant portions of figure 12 can be used in figure 15 as well):
Wherein the at least one first housing part (130) each include multiple openings (132 and/or 134) (Fig.15: the 130’s in combination define the “at last one first housing part” and thus there are multiple 132’s and multiple 134’s) through which the at least one cooling rib structure (30) and the at least one cooling plate (24) of respective semiconductor modules of the more than one semiconductor module (122 and/or 124) contact each other (See Figs.12 and 15: the 132’s and/or 134’s allows the 30’s and 24’s of respective 122’s and 124’s to contact each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Ushijima to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part each include multiple openings through which the cooling ribs and cooling plates of respective semiconductor modules contact each other, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities due to the increased number of heat dissipation components being utilized to dissipate heat from the more than one semiconductor module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as respectively recited in independent claims 6 and 9, and at least in part, for the reasons outlined in the non-final Office action of 02/03/2026.
In the amendments of 04/30/2026, Applicant amended claim 6 such that it is written in independent form that includes the subject matter of claims 1 and 9 in order to put the claim in condition for allowance, as outlined in the previous Office action. The Office notes that the subject matter of claim 9 that was amended into claim 6 was amended in such a way that the method limitations of claim 9 are now presented in product form (i.e., the method limitations of claim 9 were written in product form and then amended into claim 6), and thus independent claim 6 is still believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in the previous Office action. Claim 9 amended such that it is now an independent claim that recites all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 9 in order to put the claim in condition for allowance for the reasons outlined in non-final Office action of 02/03/2026. Therefore, independent claim 9 is now believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in the previous Office action of 02/03/2026
As outlined in the previous Office action, the remaining prior art references teach other cooling structures for semiconductor devices. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the allowable limitations as respectively recited in claims 6 and 9. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
Furthermore, none of the references provided in the Global Dossier are also believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations as respectively recited in claims 6 and 9, especially since all of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier also cite that claim 9 is believed to be in condition for allowance. Therefore, claims 6 and 9 of the instant application are also believed to be allowable over the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier for the same reasons as those provided in the Office actions provided by the Global Dossier.
See next page→
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, independent claims 6 and 9 are believed to be in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 04/30/2026 have been fully considered, but have been found unpersuasive. Regarding Applicant’s remarks directed to the “Claim Interpretation” section of the non-final Office action of 02/03/2026, the Office has fully considered the remarks, but notes that because it appears as though both the Office and Applicant have the same understanding as to what the scope of “rib” and “web” are, the points outlined by Applicant are believed to be moot. However, for the purposes of examination, the Office action will still include the same “Claim Interpretation” section so that it is clear as to what scope the limitations are given.
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Applicant contests that the claim is now believed to be in condition for allowance because neither Grassmann nor Mamitsu, taken alone or in combination, teaches “opposite lateral end faces that define openings at each end”. Specifically regarding Mamitsu, Applicant contests that the relied upon embodiment does not provide an opening on opposing faces, and thus failing to teach the amended limitations of independent claim 1.
The Office has fully considered the above argument but respectfully disagrees. While Applicant is correct that the embodiment shown in figures 7A-B of Mamitsu does not teach the claimed openings, the Office contests that the embodiment shown in figures 3A-4 does teach the amended limitation of independent claim 1. As outlined in the body of the rejection for claim 1 above, figures 3A-4 of Mamitsu teaches a series of first housings (52a) that connect in series, and each first housing (52a) having an opening on opposing sides that allow a continuous channel (53a) to be formed, and the openings allowing a coolant to directly contact fins (83) of a corresponding semiconductor device, and thus teaching the amended limitations of independent claim 1. However, the only difference is that only 80a of the two second housing parts (80a and 80b) has the inlet and the outlet, whereas the claim requires the inlet and outlet to be on opposite ends. However, since the embodiment shown in figures 7A-B of Mamitsu already teaches an inlet plate and outlet plate on opposite sides, the Office contests that one of ordinary skill in the art could utilize the embodiments shown in figures 3A-4 and 7A-B of Mamitsu to modify the device of Grassmann to arrive at the claimed device as recited in independent claim 1, as modified in the rejection above. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that neither Grassmann nor Mamitsu, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the amended limitations of independent claim 1 is believed to be in error. For the reasons outlined above, the combination of Grassmann and Mamitsu is still believed to properly reject the device of amended claim 1, and thus the rejection over Grassmann and Mamitsu is still maintained.
See next page→
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10665525: teaches a liquid cooling assembly for semiconductor devices and an inlet and outlet being on opposite ends.
US 9723764: teaches a liquid cooling assembly for semiconductor devices.
US 9941187: teaches a liquid cooling assembly for semiconductor devices.
US 20160247743: teaches a liquid cooling assembly for semiconductor devices.
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.
See next page→
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights