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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 7,9 and 14 have been amended and claim 4 has been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 10-13 and 15-16 were previously withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application KR 10-2023-0054553, filed 04/26/2023 (Korea).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 1 recites the limitation for “an optical means configured to allow virtual image light, output from an image output unit, to propagate through an interior thereof and transmit real object image light therethrough toward a pupil of a user” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The term “optical means” is treated to corresponds to structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents, i.e. waveguide or other structure capable of receiving and reflecting virtual light from a source and transmitting real object light to the user’s pupil.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation for reflective units formed of a reflective member where "a dielectric coating layer coated with a dielectric material is formed on a reflective surface of the reflective member" as recited in lines 10-11 of the claim. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be treated. Specifically, it is unclear if (i) the reflective member surface has a dielectric coating layer, and it is further coated with another/additional dielectric material; or (ii) that the reflective surface has a dielectric coating layer that is formed of dielectric material that is coated on the reflective surface? Specifically, it is unclear if there is one or more dielectric layers and dielectric materials formed on the surface of the reflective member? For the purposes of examination, the above limitation will be treated broadly, such that the reflective unit has reflective member e.g. as base or support, substrate and can have dielectric coating of dielectric material, or reflective surface of dielectric layer and coated with dielectric material or other combinations that involve dielectric layer material. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
Claims 2-9 and 14 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation for “a product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units” that falls within “a predetermined range” in lines 2 and 3. However, this limitation is confusing given that it is unclear if it is different or not different from the limitation for “a product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units has a value within a predetermined range” as recited in the base claim 1? It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “a dielectric material” in the last line of the claim. However, it is unclear if this limitation is the same or different from the limitation for “a dielectric material” as recited in base claim 1? It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and therefore inherits the same deficiencies.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a reflective member” in line 2 of the claim. However, it is unclear if this limitation is the same or different from the limitation for “a reflective member” as recited in base claim 1? It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (hereafter Peng, of record) US 20230044063 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) an optical device for augmented reality (augmented reality display headset (ARHS) e.g. 700, 800, 900, based on plurality of tilted pin-mirrors imbedded between an inner surface and an outer surface of a combiner, see title, Abstract, paragraphs [2-3,9-20,63-70,79-82,83-93, 96-103,112-120,121-127], e.g. Figs. 4-9, 12-14,19-20,31), the optical device (AGHS) comprising:
an optical means (lightguide combiner, as 405,406, as 705,805,905, e.g. paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103]) configured to allow virtual image light, output from an image output unit, to propagate through an interior of the optical means and transmit real object image light through the optical means toward a pupil of a user (i.e. as lightguide e.g. 705,805,905 allows light from virtual image optics/source 750,850,950 propagate through it, and also allow real-world environment object transmit to eye-box 722,822, pupil to be visualized by a human eye, see e.g. Figs. 7-9, paragraphs [83-93, 96-103], see equivalents in Figs. 10,12-14); and
a plurality of reflective units disposed in the optical means to transfer the virtual image light toward the pupil of the user (as pin-mirrors e.g.430, 730,830,930 in lightguide to transfer virtual image from optics/source e.g. 750 to pupil of human eye at e.g. see e.g. Figs. 7-9, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103], see equivalents in Figs. 10,12-14);
wherein the plurality of reflective units are each formed of a reflective member which reflects incident virtual image light (i.e. as pin mirrors, e.g.430, 730,830,930 are provided with reflective i.e. mirror substrate and surface, and reflect incident virtual image from optics/source e.g. 750, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 95, 96-103,142,149], Figs. 7-10,12-14, 24);
wherein a dielectric coating layer coated with a dielectric material is provided on a surface of the reflective member that reflects incident virtual image light and transfers the incident virtual image light to the pupil (i.e. as pin mirrors with surfaces and substrates as having dielectric layer coating, multilayer dielectric e.g. forming notch type coatings reflecting a narrow band pass to eye-box e.g. 722, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103,142,149], Figs. 7-10,12-14, 24), and
wherein a product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units has a value within a predetermined range (i.e. given the desired reflectivity/reflectivity range, and the definite and size and tilt, appetent size, of pin-mirrors as constant and/or adjusted for optical efficiency of the combiner, thus with their product in some range, and as configured to avoid/change image blur and efficiently allow ambient light through the combiner, see paragraphs [17, 73,79-81, 86-88, 91,96,103,108-110,117,123-125,131-132]).
Regarding claim 3, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) that the dielectric coating layer is transparent (as dielectric layer coating, multilayer dielectric e.g. forming notch type coatings transparent while reflecting a narrow band pass to eye-box e.g. 722, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103,142,149], Figs. 7-10,12-14, 24).
Regarding claim 5, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) that the value within the predetermined range is within a range of ±30% of a preset constant value (i.e. due to the reflectivity/reflectivity range, and the definite and size and tilt as appetent size of pin-mirrors is constant, while allowing for small adjustments for optical efficiency of the combiner, avoid/change image blur and efficiently allow ambient light through the combiner, see paragraphs [17, 79, 86-88, 91,96,103,108-110,117,123-125,131-132]).
Regarding claim 6, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) that at least some of the plurality of reflective units have a different reflectance (i.e. as pin-mirrors are tilted with different tilts, e.g. spatially variant tilts, the dielectric, dichroic coating reflects differently at least to an extent as due to reflection spectral shifts that typically occur with varying incidence angle, see paragraphs [9,17,79-83, 96-97,107,116,121-125], e.g. Figs. 8, 12,14).
Regarding claim 7, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) that for the plurality of reflective units (pin-mirrors), a reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units is set such that a product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units falls within a predetermined range, and the dielectric coating layer includes a coating of a dielectric material corresponding to the set reflectance (i.e. due to the reflectivity/reflectivity range given the dielectric coating materials used i.e. dielectric layer coating, multilayer dielectric, and the definite and size and tilt as appetent size of pin-mirrors is constant, while allowing for small adjustments for optical efficiency of the combiner, avoid/change image blur and efficiently allow ambient light through the combiner, see paragraphs [17, 79-83, 86-88, 91,96,103,108-110,117,123-125,131-132]).
Regarding claim 8, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) that the predetermined range is a range of ±30% of a preset constant value (i.e. due to the reflectivity/reflectivity range, and the definite and size and tilt as appetent size of pin-mirrors is constant, while allowing for small adjustments for optical efficiency of the combiner, avoid/change image blur and efficiently allow ambient light through the combiner, see paragraphs [17, 79, 86-88, 91,96,103,108-110,117,123-125,131-132]).
Regarding claim 14, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) a glasses-type augmented reality provision device comprising: optical devices for augmented reality each set forth in claim 1 (i.e. as AR glasses, visors implemented with augmented reality display headset (ARHS) e.g. 700, 800, 900, that is based on plurality of tilted pin-mirrors imbedded between an inner surface and an outer surface of a combiner, see title, Abstract, paragraphs [2-3,9-20,63-70, 73-78,86-88,91-93, 96-103,112-120,121-127], e.g. Figs. 3-9, 12-14,19-20,31); a frame unit configured such that the optical devices for augmented reality are fixed to the frame unit (e.g. frame 302, for AR glasses, paragraphs [71-78,86-88,91-93], Figs. 3-7); and fixation units configured to be coupled to the frame unit and fix the glasses-type augmented reality provision device so that the lasses-type augmented reality provision device can be worn on a face of a user (i.e. as display head set as augmented reality display headset held with hardware e.g. outer frame so it can be worn by the viewer, e.g. paragraphs [71-78,86-88,91-93], Figs. 3-7).
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (hereafter Peng) US 20230044063 A1 in view of Miyao et al. (hereafter Miyao) US 20160282623 A1 (both of record).
Regarding claim 2, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) the dielectric material (i.e. as pin mirrors as having dielectric layer coating, multilayer dielectric, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103,142,149]), but is silent that it is at least any one of SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (however, it is noted that dielectric layer coating materials used, as multilayer dielectric including notch type coating are readily made of layers such dielectric materials e.g. alternate high- and low-index of refraction materials as metal oxides, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103,142,149]).
However, Miyao teaches in the same field of invention of virtual image display apparatus (see Figs. 1-11, including a light guide member 10 with imbedded half-mirror layer 15, see abstract, paragraphs [02, 07-28, 42-48, 62-64, 72-75]), and further teaches that the dielectric coating includes at least any one of SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (i.e. as 15 has dielectric film with dielectric materials including SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, providing wavelength dependence for desired reflectance and transmittance of the wavelength ranges of the respective colors may be easily provided using interference and further desired incident-angle dependence can be provided to the reflectance and the transmittance by an interference action, paragraphs [42-48, 62-64, 72-75]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the dielectric material of the pin mirrors having dielectric layer coating to include the above dielectric material(s) as taught by Miyao in order to provide wavelength dependence for desired reflectance and transmittance of the wavelength ranges of the respective colors may be easily provided using interference and further desired incident-angle dependence can be provided to the reflectance and the transmittance by an interference action, paragraphs [42-48, 62-64, 72-75]).
Regarding claim 9, Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) that the plurality of reflective units each include a reflective member made of a metallic material (i.e. pin mirror are provided with metal coating, e.g. Al, Ag, gallium, e.g. , paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 95, 96-103,142,149], with reflecting surface of pin-mirror reflects incident light of virtual image to pupil of human eye, see e.g. Figs. 7-9, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103], see equivalents in Figs. 10,12-14). But Peng is silent that the dielectric coating layer (see claim 1 above) is also formed on or with a reflective surface of the (metallic) reflective member.
However, Miyao teaches in the same field of invention of virtual image display apparatus (see Figs. 1-11, including a light guide member 10 with imbedded half-mirror layer 15, see abstract, paragraphs [02, 07-28, 42-48, 62-64, 72-75]), and further teaches hat the dielectric coating layer is formed on a reflective surface of the (metallic) reflective member (i.e. as 15 has dielectric film formed on metal reflection film or on both sides of metal film, thereby providing wavelength dependence for desired reflectance and transmittance of the wavelength ranges of the respective colors may be easily provided using interference and further desired incident-angle dependence can be provided to the reflectance and the transmittance by an interference action, paragraphs [42-48, 62-64, 72-75]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention adapt and modify the reflecting surface of dielectric multilayer pin-mirror of Peng to include metal reflection film, such the dielectric film (of Peng) is on the metal reflection film, according to teachings of Miyao in order to provide wavelength dependence for desired reflectance and transmittance of the wavelength ranges of the respective colors may be easily provided using interference and further desired incident-angle dependence can be provided to the reflectance and the transmittance by an interference action, paragraphs [42-48, 62-64, 72-75]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 08/10/2026 regarding claim 1 and its’ dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 3-5 that the cited prior art of Peng alone or even in combination with cited prior art of Miyao does not disclose the limitation that (1) “a product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units has a value within a predetermined range”, because Peng only discloses the size, shape, spacing, and tilt of pin-mirrors can be adjusted to change the optical efficiency of image light, image blur, and optical efficiency of ambient light, but not any specific method capable of maintaining the optical uniformity of virtual image light constant, and given the specific geometry and arrangement of Fig. 7 of the instant application, and benefits of reducing a deviation in intensity of light reflected from each of the plurality of reflective units (21~25) to the pupil (40), as the intensity of light reflected from each of the plurality of reflective units (21~25) and delivered to the pupil (40) is proportional to (effective area) x (reflectance). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue (1), as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Peng teaches all limitations of claim 1, as Peng teaches (see figs. 1-36) an optical device for augmented reality (augmented reality display headset (ARHS) e.g. 700, 800, 900, based on plurality of tilted pin-mirrors imbedded between an inner surface and an outer surface of a combiner, see title, Abstract, paragraphs [2-3,9-20,63-70,79-82,83-93, 96-103,112-120,121-127], e.g. Figs. 4-9, 12-14,19-20,31), the optical device (AGHS) comprising:
an optical means (lightguide combiner, as 405,406, as 705,805,905, e.g. paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103]) configured to allow virtual image light, output from an image output unit, to propagate through an interior of the optical means and transmit real object image light through the optical means toward a pupil of a user (i.e. as lightguide e.g. 705,805,905 allows light from virtual image optics/source 750,850,950 propagate through it, and also allow real-world environment object transmit to eye-box 722,822, pupil to be visualized by a human eye, see e.g. Figs. 7-9, paragraphs [83-93, 96-103], see equivalents in Figs. 10,12-14); and
a plurality of reflective units disposed in the optical means to transfer the virtual image light toward the pupil of the user (as pin-mirrors e.g.430, 730,830,930 in lightguide to transfer virtual image from optics/source e.g. 750 to pupil of human eye at e.g. see e.g. Figs. 7-9, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103], see equivalents in Figs. 10,12-14);
wherein the plurality of reflective units are each formed of a reflective member which reflects incident virtual image light (i.e. as pin mirrors, e.g.430, 730,830,930 are provided with reflective i.e. mirror substrate and surface, and reflect incident virtual image from optics/source e.g. 750, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 95, 96-103,142,149], Figs. 7-10,12-14, 24);
wherein a dielectric coating layer coated with a dielectric material is provided on a surface of the reflective member that reflects incident virtual image light and transfers the incident virtual image light to the pupil (i.e. as pin mirrors with surfaces and substrates as having dielectric layer coating, multilayer dielectric e.g. forming notch type coatings reflecting a narrow band pass to eye-box e.g. 722, paragraphs [79-82,83-93, 96-103,142,149], Figs. 7-10,12-14, 24), and
wherein a product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units has a value within a predetermined range (i.e. given the desired reflectivity/reflectivity range, and the definite and size and tilt, appetent size, of pin-mirrors as constant and/or adjusted for optical efficiency of the combiner, thus with their product in some range, and as configured to avoid/change image blur and efficiently allow ambient light through the combiner, see paragraphs [17, 73,79-81, 86-88, 91,96,103,108-110,117,123-125,131-132]).
Peng expressly discloses that product of an effective area and reflectance of each of the plurality of reflective units has a value within a predetermined range (i.e. given the desired reflectivity/reflectivity range, and the definite and size and tilt, appetent size, of pin-mirrors as constant and/or adjusted for optical efficiency of the combiner, thus with their product in some range, and as configured to avoid/change image blur and efficiently allow ambient light through the combiner, see paragraphs [17, 73,79-81, 86-88, 91,96,103,108-110,117,123-125,131-132]). Here the it is specifically noted that no specific range or value for the product of the effective area and the reflectance is recited in the claim. Thus the product of such area and the reflectance of the pin-mirrors will be in some predetermined range. Further, the claim is directed towards an optical device for augmented reality, not a process of forming the device including forming the reflective units where there is a step or setting some definite predetermined range for the reflected light intensity.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., arrangement of reflective units with respect to the users eye and light source as detailed in Fig. 7, and/or angular dependance of intensity of reflected light, or specific predetermined range or range around a specific value, or uniform intensity of the reflected light, and improving optical uniformity for the virtual image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted, while some of the noted benefits are described by the Applicant are important, they are not recited in claims, nor art the details of the structural arrangements of relevant Fig. 7. Additionally, the term “an effective area” can be any area of all the area of the reflector not just the projected area as seen from the point of the light source (30) and is therefore treated broadly.
The cited prior art of Miyao was not used in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the cited prior art of Peng teaches all limitations of claim 1 including the limitations raised under issue (1) above.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 5 of the Remarks dated 08/10/2026.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights