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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 1/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
No specific arguments have been made, and thus those rejections that have been overcome are withdrawn, and those rejections that have not been overcome are repeated below.
In light of the 112(a) rejections now asserted against the independent claims in light of the amendments, the previous indication of allowability for the claims is withdrawn.
No prior art is applied for the same reasons noted in the Office Action of 10/31/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the plurality of carriers being arranged in a test position of the plurality of test space” on lines 10-11 introduces new matter.
At issue here is that applicant is now expressly claiming that the plurality of carriers are arranged “in a test position” of the plurality of test space (presumably spaces). This phrase is reasonably reciting that all carriers are arranged in one test space, namely the same test space. Such a recitation introduces new matter, as applicant does not originally disclose plural carriers arranged in one test space, let alone all test carriers arranged in such as space as is reasonably encompassed by the scope of this claim feature. While applicant may have meant to recite that each of the plurality of carriers is arranged in a different respective test position for a different respective one of the plurality of test spaces, this is not claimed.
The phrase “wherein the plurality of test space is used to accommodate the wafer test cassette” on line 12 introduces new matter. Applicant is now claiming that the plurality, and thus all, of the test space (presumably spaces) accommodate the same wafer test cassette, but where this is not originally disclosed. As seen in Figure 1, each space accommodates its own respective wafer test cassette, but where one space does not accommodate more than one cassette. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “wherein when the plurality of second electrical contact is configured to be electrically connected to the at least one first electrical contact, so that the tester is electrically connected to the wafer test cassette” on the second to last paragraph introduces new matter.
Applicant is now claiming, as best understood, that the plurality of second electrical contacts, and thus all of them, are connected to the “at least one first electrical contact.” Such a recitation is not reasonably supported because applicant does not reasonably disclose all second contacts electrically connected to the same first electrical contact, but where the above phrase reasonably includes such an interpretation. While applicant may be mean that each second contact is respectively electrically connected to a different respective one of the first electrical contacts, this is not reasonably claimed.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member are electromagnetic, the tester is electrically connected to the wafer test cassette during the magnetic attraction is generated” on lines 1-4 of Claim 2 lacks proper written description.
Applicant discloses two types of magnetic attraction, one using a permanent magnet, and one using an electromagnetic. The second way that the magnetic field from the carrier could be generated is by way of the disclosed electromagnet. However, similar to the above explanation, the original disclosure is completely silent as to any reasonable details as to the manner in which the electromagnet is operated. There is no disclosure explaining any particular device that was either reasonably explained or demonstrated to be well-known that operates the electromagnet, nor any reasonable explanation as to the manner in which it is actually operated. The Examiner acknowledges that electromagnets merely require a current to function, but applicant is not merely placing a current into the electromagnet and leaving it on. Instead, applicant reasonably has some mechanism to operate when the electromagnet functions, but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to this mechanism. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements such a feature.
As to Claims 3 and 12,
The phrase “the plurality of carrier or the wafer test cassette includes a magnetic barrier assembly configured to reduce or eliminate the magnetic attraction, wherein the magnetic barrier is a removable shield” on lines 1-4 of Claim 3 and the similar phrase in Claim 12 lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is now claiming that the plurality of carrier (presumable carriers), include a magnetic barrier assembly as claimed. This phrase is therefore claiming that the plurality of carriers collectively include one magnetic barrier assembly, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose such a feature. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
2) Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above barrier is included in either the test carrier or cassette to function as claimed. The barrier is shown with regard to the carrier, but in order to function as claimed, the barrier would need to be operated and slid into or removed from a location in order to function as intended. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this function is implemented. The original disclosure is completely silent as to a device that is either sufficiently disclosed or conventional that performs such a function. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that it is not as simple as merely moving the disclosed barrier from the carrier to cassette, for example, because the barrier is required to be slid depending on whether a blocking of the magnetic field and magnetic field attraction is desired. As such, some undisclosed mechanism is required to be part of the cassette or carrier in order to operate the barrier to function as claimed. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably provide such a device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the barrier was implemented in the above claim to demonstrate possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “wherein the at least one first electrical contact is connected to a plurality of second electrical contact through the magnetic attraction” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is distinctly reciting a plurality of second electrical contact (presumably contacts) distinctly from any previously plurality of second electrical contacts already recite din claim 1, but where no other contacts distinct from those previously recited were originally disclosed. This phrase therefore introduces new matter as the claim 1 phrase reasonably includes all disclosed second contacts, thus leaving no other contacts that the above phrase can reasonably refer to.
2) Applicant is now claiming, as best understood, that the plurality of second electrical contacts, and thus all of them, are connected to the “at least one first electrical contact.” Such a recitation is not reasonably supported because applicant does not reasonably disclose all second contacts electrically connected to the same first electrical contact, but where the above phrase reasonably includes such an interpretation. While applicant may be mean that each second contact is respectively electrically connected to a different respective one of the first electrical contacts, this is not reasonably claimed.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the test cabinet further includes a slide assembly connected to the plurality of carrier, and the slide assembly is configured to drive the plurality of carrier to move toward an interior or an exterior of the plurality of test space” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant is now claiming that one slide assembly, claimed as “a slide assembly,” is connected to the plurality of carrier (presumably carriers). Such a recitation introduces new matter as applicant does not originally disclose that one slide assembly is connected to more than one carrier, let alone all carriers as claimed. While applicant may mean that the slide assembly is respectively connected to one of the plurality of carriers, this is not claimed.
2) The second issue is that while applicant now claims “the slide assembly is an assembly including two slide carriers respectively disposed on two sides of a bottom of the wafer test cassette, the two slide carriers are configured to support the wafer test cassette and elevate the wafer test cassette in the plurality of test space,” applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this feature is imp[lamented. Merely raising a lowering a component is not reasonably “sliding” that component, in the same way that a platform merely raising or lowering an object is not sliding without more disclosure. Applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to what a slide carrier is, where it is specifically located, or the manner in which the two slide carriers function to achieve the claim feature. There is no disclosure of any feature that is part of the slide carriers or connected thereto for control of these carriers, or any other reasonably disclosure of the manner in which they are operated to therefore be configured in the claim manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which this feature is implemented in order to establish possession of the claim feature.
3) Applicant is now claiming that the slide assembly has slide carriers that are configured to elevate the wafer test cassette in the plurality of test space (presumably spaces), but where such a feature introduces new matter. This phrase reasonably means that the slide carriers are configured to elevate the cassette into all test spaces, but where the original disclosure does not disclose that the carriers perform this function. While the slide carriers may elevate the cassette into one space, they are not disclosed to elevate it into all spaces.
4) There is no disclosure as to the manner in which the slide carriers themselves are “configured” to elevate the cassette in an manner. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any slide carriers are configured, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the slide carriers are implemented to perform or otherwise be configured to perform the claim feature.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “wherein the plurality of test space is used to accommodate the wafer test cassette” on line 8 introduces new matter. Applicant is now claiming that the plurality, and thus all, of the test space (presumably spaces) accommodate the same wafer test cassette, but where this is not originally disclosed. As seen in Figure 1, each space accommodates its own respective wafer test cassette, but where one space does not accommodate more than one cassette. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “the plurality of test space is defined by a top plate, a bottom plate, and a side wall; wherein a second magnetic member is disposed in the plurality of test space, the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, and the wafer test cassette is fixed in the plurality of test space through magnetic attraction generated between the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member” on lines 8-13 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is now claiming that the entirety of the plurality of test space (presumably spaces) is defined by a top plate, a bottom plate, and a side wall, but where this is not originally disclosed. While one space may be defined in this manner, all spaces are not defined by one top plate, one bottom plate as claimed.
2) Applicant is now claiming that a second magnetic member is disposed in the plurality of test space, but where the original disclosure does not disclose such a feature. While a second magnetic member may be disclosed to be in one test space, one magnetic member is not originally disclosed to be in all of the plurality of test spaces as is currently claimed.
3) Applicant is now claiming that the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, but such a feature introduces new matter. While the second magnetic member is disposed on a bottom plate or side wall of one test space, it is not disposed on such a feature for all of the spaces as now claimed.
The phrase “wherein when the plurality of second electrical contact of the at least one test cabinet is configured to be electrically connected to the at least one first electrical contact, so that the wafer test cassette is electrically connected to the tester” on the last paragraph is indefinite.
Applicant is now claiming, as best understood, that the plurality of second electrical contacts, and thus all of them, are connected to the “at least one first electrical contact.” Such a recitation is not reasonably supported because applicant does not reasonably disclose all second contacts electrically connected to the same first electrical contact, but where the above phrase reasonably includes such an interpretation. While applicant may be mean that each second contact is respectively electrically connected to a different respective one of the first electrical contacts, this is not reasonably claimed.
As to Claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 11-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the plurality of test space” on lines 10-11 and 12 is indefinite The term “space” is singular, but as there are a plurality of spaces, the term must be “spaces.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the spaces of the plurality of spaces, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “space” should be “spaces.”
The phrase “the plurality of carrier” on lines 10 contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “carrier” is singular, but as there are a plurality of carriers, the term must be “carriers.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of carriers, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “carrier” should be “carriers.”
The phrase “the plurality of second electrical contact” on line 13 contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “contact” is singular, but as there are a plurality of contacts, the term must be “contacts.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of contacts, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “contact” should be “contacts.”
The phrase “the plurality of carrier being arranged in a test position of the plurality of test space” on lines 10-11 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what the relationship is between the carriers and the test positions. This phrase reasonably means that all plural carriers are located in the same test position of the plurality of test positions, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose such a feature. Instead, applicant discloses that each carrier is in a different test position of the plurality of test positions. As such, in light of the disclosure, it is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted.
The phrase “wherein when the plurality of second electrical contact is configured to be electrically connected to the at least one first electrical contact, so that the tester is electrically connected to the wafer test cassette” on the second to last paragraph is indefinite.
1) The use of the term “when” in the above phrase is indefinite, because this claim is an apparatus claim directed towards the final product. As such, whether the second electrical contact is or is not actually in contact with a first electrical contact, it itself must always be configured to be electrically connected to the first electrical contact. Nothing changes about the contacts regardless of whether they are or are not actually in electrically connection. As such, the use of the above term “when” is indefinite, because the actual configuration of any electrical contact does not change whether it is or is not electrically connected to another contact. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by reciting that the actual configuration of one of the second electrical contacts is conditional as claimed.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what is contact is connected, in that applicant is now claiming, as best understood, that the plurality of second electrical contacts, and thus all of them, are connected to the “at least one first electrical contact.” Such a recitation is indefinite because applicant does not reasonably disclose all second contacts electrically connected to the same first electrical contact, but where the above phrase reasonably includes such an interpretation. It is therefore unclear whether each second electrical contact is electrically connected to a respective one of the first electrical contacts, or if the claim is reciting that all plural second contacts are connected to one first electrical contact.
3) The phrase “so that the tester is electrically connected to the wafer test cassette” is indefinite. Applicant initially recites the manner in which the second electrical contact is configured, but such a configuration only describes the manner in which the second electrical contact is actually configured, but not that it is actually connected to the first electrical contact. However, applicant then recites the above phrase, in which such a phrase would reasonably include an require the tester to actually be electrically connected to the wafer test cassette. Such a phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether this claim feature is actually requiring the tester to be electrically connected to the wafer test cassette, or is only describing what would happen should the second and first electrical contact become electrically connected. This is especially an issue in light of the now added term “when,” as it is unclear how this condition relates to the above phrase. Claiming the manner in which the second electrical contact is configured is only claiming what it itself is designed or configured to do, and it is not claiming what it is actually connected to, thus raising an issue of indefiniteness.
As to Claims 3 and 12,
The phrase “the plurality of carrier or the wafer test cassette includes a magnetic barrier assembly configured to reduce or eliminate the magnetic attraction, wherein the magnetic barrier is a removable shield” on lines 1-4 of Claim 3 and the similar phrase in Claim 12 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the plurality of carrier” contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “carrier” is singular, but as there are a plurality of carriers, the term must be “carriers.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of carriers, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “carrier” should be “carriers.”
2) At issue here is that it is unclear what the relationship is between the carriers and the magnetic barrier assembly. This phrase reasonably means that all plural carriers include one magnetic barrier assembly, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose such a feature. Instead, applicant discloses that each carrier with its own respective magnetic barrier assembly. As such, in light of the disclosure, it is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted.
As to Claims 5 and 14,
The phrase “the plurality of second electrical contact” on lines 2-3 contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “contact” is singular, but as there are a plurality of contacts, the term must be “contacts.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of contacts, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “contact” should be “contacts.”
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the plurality of carrier” on lines 2 and 3 contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “carrier” is singular, but as there are a plurality of carriers, the term must be “carriers.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of carriers, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “carrier” should be “carriers.”
The phrase “the plurality of test space” on lines 4 and 8 is indefinite The term “space” is singular, but as there are a plurality of spaces, the term must be “spaces.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the spaces of the plurality of spaces, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “space” should be “spaces.”
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the plurality of carrier” on line 2 contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “carrier” is singular, but as there are a plurality of carriers, the term must be “carriers.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of carriers, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “carrier” should be “carriers.”
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “the plurality of test space” on lines 8, 9, 10, and 12 is indefinite The term “space” is singular, but as there are a plurality of spaces, the term must be “spaces.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the spaces of the plurality of spaces, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “space” should be “spaces.”
The phrase “the plurality of second electrical contact” on line 14 contains a typographical issue and stands objected for such an issue. The term “contact” is singular, but as there are a plurality of contacts, the term must be “contacts.” To that point, it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the carriers of the plurality of contacts, or if this phrase merely contains a typographical and the term “contact” should be “contacts.”
The phrase “the plurality of test space is defined by a top plate, a bottom plate, and a side wall; wherein a second magnetic member is disposed in the plurality of test space, the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, and the wafer test cassette is fixed in the plurality of test space through magnetic attraction generated between the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member” on lines 8-13 is indefinite.
1) Applicant is now claiming that the entirety of the plurality of test space (presumably spaces) is defined by a top plate, a bottom plate, and a side wall, but where this is not originally disclosed. While one space may be defined in this manner, all spaces are not defined by one top plate, one bottom plate as claimed. As such, the relationship between the plates and wall and the test spaces are unclear.
2) Applicant is now claiming that a second magnetic member is disposed in the plurality of test space, but where the original disclosure does not disclose such a feature. While a second magnetic member may be disclosed to be in one test space, one magnetic member is not originally disclosed to be in all of the plurality of test spaces as is currently claimed. As such, the relationship between the second magnetic member and the test space is unclear, in that it is unclear if this phrase is referring to one magnetic member for all spaces or if applicant intended this phrase to refer to a singular test space and its relationship to the magnetic member.
3) Applicant is now claiming that the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, but such a feature is not reasonably disclosed when the plates and wall are for all the spaces collectively as claimed. While the second magnetic member is disposed on a bottom plate or side wall of one test space, it is not disposed on such a feature for all of the spaces as now claimed. As such, the relationship between these features and the magnetic member are unclear.
The phrase “wherein when the plurality of second electrical contact of the at least one test cabinet is configured to be electrically connected to the at least one first electrical contact, so that the wafer test cassette is electrically connected to the tester” on the last paragraph is indefinite.
1) The use of the term “when” in the above phrase is indefinite, because this claim is an apparatus claim directed towards the final product. As such, whether the second electrical contact is or is not actually in contact with a first electrical contact, it itself must always be configured to be electrically connected to the first electrical contact. Nothing changes about the contacts regardless of whether they are or are not actually in electrically connection. As such, the use of the above term “when” is indefinite, because the actual configuration of any electrical contact does not change whether it is or is not electrically connected to another contact. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by reciting that the actual configuration of one of the second electrical contacts is conditional as claimed.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what is contact is connected, in that applicant is now claiming, as best understood, that the plurality of second electrical contacts, and thus all of them, are connected to the “at least one first electrical contact.” Such a recitation is indefinite because applicant does not reasonably disclose all second contacts electrically connected to the same first electrical contact, but where the above phrase reasonably includes such an interpretation. It is therefore unclear whether each second electrical contact is electrically connected to a respective one of the first electrical contacts, or if the claim is reciting that all plural second contacts are connected to one first electrical contact.
3) The phrase “so that the wafer test cassette is electrically connected to the tester” is indefinite. Applicant initially recites the manner in which the second electrical contact is configured, but such a configuration only describes the manner in which the second electrical contact is actually configured, but not that it is actually connected to the first electrical contact. However, applicant then recites the above phrase, in which such a phrase would reasonably include an require the tester to actually be electrically connected to the wafer test cassette. Such a phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether this claim feature is actually requiring the tester to be electrically connected to the wafer test cassette, or is only describing what would happen should the second and first electrical contact become electrically connected. This is especially an issue in light of the now added term “when,” as it is unclear how this condition relates to the above phrase. Claiming the manner in which the second electrical contact is configured is only claiming what it itself is designed or configured to do, and it is not claiming what it is actually connected to, thus raising an issue of indefiniteness.
The phrases “the test space is used to accommodate the wafer test cassette” on line 8 and “the test space” on lines 9, 10, and 12 are indefinite. More than one test space was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear which test space this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the test space is defined by a top plate, a bottom plate, and a side wall” on line 9 is indefinite. Applicant previously claims a test cabinet, and as best understood, the above top plate, bottom plate, and side wall are part of the test cabinet (see Figure 6 for example). However, applicant is distinctly reciting these features from the test cabinet, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct in light of the disclosure. As such, the difference and relationship between the above features and the already claimed test cabinet are unclear.
The phrase “the second electrical contact” on line 15 is indefinite. Applicant previously recites “a plurality of second electrical contacts,” and the above phrase is indefinite because it is unclear which of the previous plurality of contacts this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the first electrical contact” on line 16 is indefinite. Applicant initially recites “at least one first electrical contact” on lines 2-3. While only one contact has necessarily been introduced, this phrase also reasonably includes more than one due to the phrase “at least one.” As such, it is unclear which contact this phrase is referencing. It is suggested to recite “the at least one first electrical contact.”
The phrase “the test cabinet” on line 15 is indefinite. Applicant initially recites “at least test cabinet” on line 6. While only one cabinet has necessarily been introduced, this phrase also reasonably includes more than one due to the phrase “at least one.” As such, it is unclear which contact this phrase is referencing. It is suggested to recite “the at least one test cabinet.”
The phrase “so that the tester is electrically connected to the wafer test cassette” on lines 16-17 is indefinite. Applicant initially recites the manner in which the second electrical contact is configured, but such a configuration only describes the manner in which the second electrical contact is actually configured, but not that it is actually connected to the first electrical contact. However, applicant then recites the above phrase, in which such a phrase would reasonably include an require the tester to actually be electrically connected to the wafer test cassette. Such a phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether this claim feature is actually requiring the tester to be electrically connected to the wafer test cassette, or is only describing what would happen should the second and first electrical contact become electrically connected. Claiming the manner in which the second electrical contact is configured is only claiming what it itself is designed or configured to do, and it is not claiming what it is actually connected to, thus raising an issue of indefiniteness.
As to Claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 11-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858