DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 11-12), filed 06/22/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Takada et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 06/22/2026), as detailed below.
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 13-14), filed 06/22/2026, regarding the newly added claims 11-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to make arguments that “the cited documents fail to disclose or suggest the first supporting unit and the second supporting unit are not directly connected to each other, but are physically combined with the resin stage, and the reflector is mounted on the resin stage’” (pg. 13 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Kono 2 (JP 2016045335 A) discloses that the first supporting unit is connected to an end portion of the first bar, the second supporting unit is connected to an end portion of the second bar, the first supporting unit and the second supporting unit are not directly connected to each other, but are physically combined with the resin stage (¶0061: the support portion 2 may have multiple independent support sections, where the movable plate 4 only needs to be supported by different support parts via the torsion spring parts 3A and 3B; ¶0036, 0064: The materials of the holding parts 6A and 6B are the same as the materials of the movable plate 4…resin may be used as materials for the movable plate), and the reflector is mounted on the resin stage (¶0024, 0034, 0041: the pair of holding parts 6A and 6B are each positioned on the mounting surface 4g of movable plate which is attached to the mirror portion 9). Applicant is respectfully reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). Applicant’s arguments also do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, these arguments do not sufficiently show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See corresponding indefiniteness rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) directed to “the first supporting unit and the second supporting unit are not directly connected to each other”, detailed further below. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Applicant’s arguments are insufficient to overcome the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kono 2 and the newly added claims 11-20 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first resin body is disposed on a top surface of the first frame body and on a bottom surface of the first frame body must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claims 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation: “the first supporting unit and the second supporting unit are not directly connected to each other”. It is unclear what is meant by “directly connected”, in that the specification (filed 03/05/2024) appears to be completely silent with respect to what is meant by the supporting units being not directly connected (i.e., the specification also appears to be silent with regards to what is meant by being directly connected). Thus, the present negative limitation renders the claim indefinite by virtue of subjective terminology, wherein the instant disclosure lacks any objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as best understood in light of the specification: “the first supporting unit and the second supporting unit are connected to each other”.
Claims 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 11 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono (JP 2015152869 A) in view of Takada et al (JP 2020187235 A).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, Kono discloses: An optical scanning device (¶0048: optical scanning device 100) comprising: a movable reflector (¶0049: mirror unit 200 provided on one surface 20); a first frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector (¶0021: frame portion 6, the movable plate 2, and the torsion spring portion 4 are formed by etching or pressing a rectangular metal plate that is long in the vertical direction); a first torsion bar made of metal that is connected to the movable reflector and the first frame body (¶0017: pair of torsion springs 4 are arranged on a straight line along a first direction (in this embodiment, the vertical direction) parallel to one surface 20 (the front surface in this embodiment) of the movable plate 2, and connect the ends of the movable plate 2 in the first direction to the frame 6),
Although Kono discloses the first resin body provided over a bottom surface of the first frame body (¶0024: A reinforcing member 61 made of resin material, metal material, or the like is provided on the back of the frame portion 6), Kono does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first resin body is disposed on a top surface of the first frame body and on a bottom surface of the first frame body.
Takada is related to Kono with respect to an optical scanning device comprising a movable reflector, a frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector, and a first resin body (¶0007, 0016-17, 0019, 0021), and Takada teaches: wherein the first resin body is disposed on a top surface of the first frame body and on a bottom surface of the first frame body (¶0007: the base material has side surfaces, a top surface and a bottom surface; ¶0019: resin member 32 covers a portion of the bottom surface 31E and top surface 31F of the base material 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Kono in view of Takada to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a resin body allows the system to be manufactured uniformly with high dimensional accuracy such that components may be printed with high precision, as taught in paragraphs ¶0003, 0009, 0044 of Takada.
Regarding Claim 2, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: a second frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the first frame body (¶0021: a rectangular outer frame 8 that surrounds the frame portion 6…frame portion are formed by etching or pressing a rectangular metal plate that is long in the vertical direction); a second torsion bar made of metal that is connected to the first frame body and the second frame body (¶0017: pair of torsion springs 4 are arranged on a straight line along a first direction (in this embodiment, the vertical direction) parallel to one surface 20 (the front surface in this embodiment) of the movable plate 2, and connect the ends of the movable plate 2 in the first direction to the frame 6; see FIGS. 1-2 showing second torsion bar 4 as claimed); and a second resin body provided over at least a part of the second frame body (¶0024: A reinforcing member 61 made of resin material, metal material, or the like is provided on the back of the frame portion 6; see FIG. 2 showing a second resin body 61 provided over at least a part of the second frame body 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: wherein a distance measured in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the first frame body between opposing portions of the first frame body decreases as a distance from the rotation axis increases in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis (¶0023, 0052; see FIG. 1 showing distance between both portions of the first frame body 6 opposing to each other measured in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the first frame body decreases in at least a part of the first frame body in a perpendicular direction away from the rotation axis).
Regarding Claim 6, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: wherein a width of the first resin body at a portion where curvature of the first frame body changes is larger than a width of the first frame body at portions adjacent to said portion (¶0023-24; see FIG. 2 showing a width of the first resin body 61 in a portion where curvature of the first frame body 6 changes is larger than a width of the first frame body at adjacent portions).
Regarding Claim 7, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: a width of the first resin body at a connecting portion between the first frame body and the first torsion bar is larger than a width of the first resin body at portions adjacent to the connecting portion (¶0024; see FIG. 2 showing a width of the resin body in a connecting portion of the first resin body 61 between the first frame body 6 and the first torsion bar 4 is larger than a width of the first resin body at portions adjacent to the connecting portion of the first resin body 61).
Regarding Claim 8, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: wherein at least one hole is provided on a surface of a portion of the first resin body that is not overlapped with the first frame body (¶0022: holes 9 are provided at four corners of outer frame 8; ¶0024; see FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: wherein a width, in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the first frame body, of the permanent magnet is equal to or larger than 95% and equal to or less than 105% of a width, in the direction parallel to the rotation axis of the first frame body, of a portion of the first frame body at which the permanent magnet is mounted (¶0024: Magnets 5 are provided at both the upper and lower ends of the back surface; see FIG. 2 showing width of magnet 5 is equal to the width of a portion of the first frame body 6 at which the permanent magnet is mounted).
Regarding Claim 10, Kono discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono further discloses: A sensor device (¶0048: measurement unit 234) comprising: a light-emitting element (¶0049: The light irradiation unit 23 has a laser 231 (light source)); and a light detection element that detects light emitted from the light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflector, and reflected or scattered by an object that exists outside of the optical scanning device (¶0055: light receiving section 232; ¶0049: an optical irradiation unit 23 that irradiates light onto the mirror unit 200; ¶0048: The optical scanning device 100 scan a predetermined detection range F1 with the irradiated light L1, and receives the reflected light L2 reflected from an object within the detection range F1 with the light receiving unit 232).
Claims 1-2, 4, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono (JP 2016045335 A; hereinafter as “Kono 2”) in view of Takada et al (JP 2020187235 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kono 2 discloses: An optical scanning device (¶0010: optical scanning device) comprising: a movable reflector (¶0041: the mirror portion 9); a first frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector (¶0054: the movable plate 4 is made of metal; see FIG. 3 showing first frame body 4 located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector 9); a first torsion bar made of metal that is connected to the movable reflector and the first frame body (¶0018: The other end of the torsion spring section 3A is connected to the movable plate 4; ¶0044: When rotational torque is applied to the movable plate 4, the torsion spring section 3A vibrate in a twisting motion around the axis of rotation; ¶0064: the materials for the torsion spring sections 3A and 3B may be other metal materials; see FIGS. 1 & 4 showing first torsion bar made 3A of metal that is connected to the movable reflector 9 and the first frame body 4).
Kono 2 does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first resin body is disposed on a top surface of the first frame body and on a bottom surface of the first frame body.
Takada is related to Kono with respect to an optical scanning device comprising a movable reflector, a frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector, and a first resin body (¶0007, 0016-17, 0019, 0021), and Takada teaches: wherein the first resin body is disposed on a top surface of the first frame body and on a bottom surface of the first frame body (¶0007: the base material has side surfaces, a top surface and a bottom surface; ¶0019: resin member 32 covers a portion of the bottom surface 31E and top surface 31F of the base material 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Kono 2 in view of Takada to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a resin body allows the system to be manufactured uniformly with high dimensional accuracy such that components may be printed with high precision, as taught in paragraphs ¶0003, 0009, 0044 of Takada.
Regarding Claim 2, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: a second frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the first frame body (¶0061: the shape of the support portion 2 may be an annular frame shape; see FIG. 1); ; a second torsion bar made of metal that is connected to the first frame body and the second frame body (¶0017: The pair of torsion spring sections 3A and 3B are arranged within the space of the support section 2; ¶0019: The other end of the torsion spring section 3B is connected to the movable plate 4) and a second resin body provided over at least a part of the second frame body (¶0047: the pair of holding parts 6A and 6B are connected via third pieces 63A, 64A, 63B, and 64B, the stress load on the holding parts 6A and 6B can be distributed; ¶0053: the movable plate 4 and the holding parts 6A and 6B are made of the same material; see FIG. 4 showing second resin body 6B+41B over second frame body 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: a protrusion which is provided at least one of an outer edge or an inner edge of the first frame body and a tip of which is exposed from the first resin body (¶0034: The corner portion 65B is the part of the holding portion 6B that is bent along the placement surface 4g of the movable plate 4; see FIG. 4 showing protrusion 65B).
Regarding Claim 5, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: wherein a weld of a resin forming the first resin body is formed in a portion that is different from a portion of the first frame body that is connected to the first torsion bar (¶0067: the second piece 62A and the magnet 5, and the second piece 62B and the magnet 5 may be joined by welding; see FIG. 1 showing weld of resin body is formed in a portion that is different from a portion of the first frame body 4 that is connected to the first torsion bar 3A).
Regarding Claim 7, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: a width of the first resin body at a connecting portion between the first frame body and the first torsion bar is larger than a width of the first resin body at portions adjacent to the connecting portion (¶0027; see FIG. 4 showing a width of the resin body at a connecting portion of the first resin body 6A between the first frame body 4 and the first torsion bar 3A is larger than a width of the first resin body at portions adjacent to the connecting portion of the first resin body 6A).
Regarding Claim 8, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: wherein at least one hole is provided on a surface of a portion of the first resin body that is not overlapped with the first frame body (¶0035: the holding parts 6A and 6B are formed using portions punched out as holes 41A and 41B).
Regarding Claim 9, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: wherein a width, in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the first frame body, of the permanent magnet is equal to or larger than 95% and equal to or less than 105% of a width, in the direction parallel to the rotation axis of the first frame body, of a portion of the first frame body at which the permanent magnet is mounted (¶0023: the magnet 5 is positioned approximately in the center of the mounting surface 4g of the movable plate 4…The shape of magnet 5 is a rectangular prism; see FIG. 1 showing width of magnet 5 is equal to the width of a portion of the first frame body 4 at which the permanent magnet is mounted).
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono (JP 2016045335 A; hereinafter as “Kono 2”) in view of Kono (JP 2015152869 A).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Kono 2 discloses: An optical scanning device (¶0010: optical scanning device) comprising: a movable reflector (¶0041: the mirror portion 9); a first frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector (¶0054: the movable plate 4 is made of metal; see FIG. 3 showing first frame body 4 located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector 9); a pair of first torsion bars made of metal that is connected to the movable reflector and the first frame body (¶0017: The pair of torsion spring sections 3A and 3B are arranged within the space of the support section 2; ¶0019: The other end of the torsion spring section 3B is connected to the movable plate 4; ¶0018: The other end of the torsion spring section 3A is connected to the movable plate 4; ¶0044: When rotational torque is applied to the movable plate 4, the torsion spring section 3A vibrate in a twisting motion around the axis of rotation; ¶0064: the materials for the torsion spring sections 3A and 3B may be other metal materials; see FIGS. 1 & 4 showing torsion bars 3A-3B of metal that is connected to the movable reflector 9 and the first frame body 4); wherein the movable reflector includes a reflector (¶0041: the mirror portion 9 is attached to the surface of the movable plate 4), a first supporting unit made of metal, a second supporting unit made of metal (¶0061: two independent support sections of support portions 2), and a resin stage (¶0024: the pair of holding parts 6A and 6B are each positioned on the mounting surface 4g), the pair of first torsion bars include a first bar and a second bar (¶0017), the first supporting unit is connected to an end portion of the first bar, the second supporting unit is connected to an end portion of the second bar, the first supporting unit and the second supporting unit are not directly connected to each other, but are physically combined with the resin stage (¶0061: the support portion 2 may have multiple independent support sections, where the movable plate 4 only needs to be supported by different support parts via the torsion spring parts 3A and 3B; ¶0036, 0064: The materials of the holding parts 6A and 6B are the same as the materials of the movable plate 4…resin may be used as materials for the movable plate), and the reflector is mounted on the resin stage (¶0024, 0034, 0041: the pair of holding parts 6A and 6B are each positioned on the mounting surface 4g of movable plate which is attached to the mirror portion 9).
Kono 2 does not appear to explicitly disclose: a first resin body provided over at least a part of the first frame body.
Kono is related to Kono 2 with respect to an optical scanning device comprising a movable reflector, a frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector, and a first resin body (see rejection of claim 1 supra), and Kono teaches: a first resin body provided over at least a part of the first frame body (¶0024: A reinforcing member 61 made of resin material, metal material, or the like is provided on the back of the frame portion 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Kono 2 in view of Kono to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a first resin body is provided to suppress deflection of the frame portion, as taught in paragraphs ¶0024 of Kono.
Regarding Claim 12, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: further comprising: a second frame body made of metal that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the first frame body; a second torsion bar made of metal that is connected to the first frame body and the second frame body; and a second resin body provided over at least a part of the second frame body (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 13, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claim 13. Kono is related to Kono 2 (see claim 11 supra) and Kono teaches: wherein a distance, measured in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the first frame body, between opposing portions of the first frame body decreases as a distance from the rotation axis increases in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis (¶0023, 0052; see FIG. 1 showing distance between both portions of the first frame body 6 opposing to each other measured in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the first frame body decreases in at least a part of the first frame body in a perpendicular direction away from the rotation axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Kono 2 in view of Kono to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a resin body allows the system to be manufactured uniformly with high dimensional accuracy such that components may be printed with high precision, as taught in paragraphs ¶0003, 0009, 0044 of Kono.
Regarding Claim 14, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: further comprising: a protrusion which is provided on at least one of an outer edge or an inner edge of the first frame body and a tip of which is exposed from the first resin body (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Regarding Claim 15, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 2 further discloses: wherein a weld of a resin forming the first resin body is formed in a portion that is different from a portion of the first frame body that is connected to the first torsion bars (see rejection of claim 5 supra).
Regarding Claim 16, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claim 16. Kono is related to Kono 2 (see claim 11 supra) and Kono teaches: wherein a width of the first resin body at a portion where curvature of the first frame body changes is larger than a width of the first frame body at portions adjacent to said portion (¶0023-24; see FIG. 2 showing a width of the first resin body 61 in a portion where curvature of the first frame body 6 changes is larger than a width of the first frame body at adjacent portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Kono 2 in view of Kono to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a width configuration is known and would be selected to reduce stress in the system, as taught in paragraphs ¶0014 of Kono.
Regarding Claim 17, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: wherein a width of the first resin body at a connecting portion between the first frame body and the first torsion bars is larger than a width of the first resin body at portions adjacent to the connecting portion (see rejection of claim 7 supra).
Regarding Claim 18, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: wherein at least one hole is provided on a surface of a portion of the first resin body that is not overlapped with the first frame body (see rejection of claim 8 supra).
Regarding Claim 19, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 further discloses: further comprising a permanent magnet mounted over the first frame body, wherein a width, in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the first frame body, of the permanent magnet is equal to or larger than 95% and equal to or less than 105% of a width, in the direction parallel to the rotation axis of the first frame body, of a portion of the first frame body at which the permanent magnet is mounted (see rejection of claim 9 supra).
Regarding Claim 20, Kono 2 discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 11, as above. Kono 2 does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claim 20. Kono is related to Kono 2 (see claim 11 supra) and Kono teaches: A sensor device (¶0048: measurement unit 234) comprising: a light-emitting element (¶0049: The light irradiation unit 23 has a laser 231 (light source)); and a light detection element that detects light emitted from the light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflector, and reflected or scattered by an object that exists outside of the optical scanning device (¶0055: light receiving section 232; ¶0049: an optical irradiation unit 23 that irradiates light onto the mirror unit 200; ¶0048: The optical scanning device 100 scan a predetermined detection range F1 with the irradiated light L1, and receives the reflected light L2 reflected from an object within the detection range F1 with the light receiving unit 232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Kono 2 in view of Kono to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a sensor device is known and would be selected to calculate the distance to the object and is used in advanced driving systems such as pre-collision safety systems to detect surrounding obstacles in automatic emergency braking systems and automatic parking assist systems, as taught in paragraphs ¶0048, 0053 of Kono.
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights