DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on February 3rd, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on November 6th, 2025.
Rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Rejections of claims 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed February 3rd, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues modifying Trantor by replacing the solid substrate, solid ink or solid layer with a partially cured material would render Trantor inoperable since it would not occur to one of ordinary skill in the art that surface roughness can be associated with anything but a solid part. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no recitation in the disclosure of the Trantor reference that suggests the ink may not be partially cured. There is also no recitation in the disclosure of the refence to suggest that a partially cured material cannot have a surface roughness. Examiner notes that it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (II). As such, the Trantor reference does not teach away from a modification with Williams to partially cure the material.
Applicant argues one or ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Trantor in view of Williams as Trantor teaches away from partially cured material. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no recitation in the disclosure of the Trantor reference that suggests the ink may not be partially cured. There is also no recitation in the disclosure of the refence to suggest that a partially cured material cannot have a surface roughness. Examiner notes that it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (II). As such, the Trantor reference does not teach away from a modification with Williams to partially cure the material.
Applicant argues Zhou discloses “rapid solidification of substrate materials” and “rapid curing” and therefore it would appear that Zhou and Williams teach away from each other. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no recitation in the disclosure of the Trantor reference that suggests the ink may not be partially cured. There is also no recitation in the disclosure of the refence to suggest that a partially cured material cannot have a surface roughness. Examiner notes that it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (II). As such, the Trantor reference does not teach away from a modification with Williams to partially cure the material. Furthermore, concerning the Zhou reference, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145 (III). The Zhou reference is used to teach that teaches it was well known in the art of manufacturing printed circuit devices ([0029]) to selectively deposit non-thixotropic material to form a layer ([0117]; material printed may comprise PDMS).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate an updated grounds of rejection provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 12, 13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tranter et al. (WO 2007045436 A1; hereafter Tranter), in view of Williams (US 20070062033 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tranter discloses a hybrid manufacturing method, the method comprising:
laser writing a border (Fig. 6b; Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; laser surface roughening to form borders 601a-e) on a receiving surface of a substrate (Fig. 6b; Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; surface of substrate 100), the border defining an internal zone inside the border (Fig. 6b; Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; regions 101a-e) and an external zone outside the border (Fig. 6b; region denoted by 150), the border being a part of the substrate that is changed in its material properties by the laser writing (Pg. 5, 5th ¶; laser surface roughening changes the surface of the substrate 100);
depositing a material in the internal zone (Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; depositing an ink), the material being deposited in an uncured state on the receiving surface (Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; ink is deposited and only cured afterwards), wherein a flow of the material from the internal zone towards the external zone is impeded by the border (Pg. 6, 2nd ¶ and Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; laser surface roughening to form borders 601a-e creates excessive surface roughness that increases contact angle, which in turn reduces the tendency of the liquid ink to spread out);
and curing the material in the internal zone (Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; ink may be cured), the cured material forming a layer (Fig. 6b; Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; cured ink forms a layer).
The embodiment disclosed in Figure 6b of Tranter does not disclose laser writing a subsequent border on the partially cured material to define a subsequent internal zone within the subsequent border; and depositing an uncured subsequent material on the partially cured material in the subsequent internal zone to form a subsequent layer constrained by the subsequent border, wherein the subsequent border is configured to impede a flow of the subsequent material out of the subsequent internal zone.
However, Tranter teaches an alternative embodiment in Figure 5 for multilayer deposition, wherein laser writing a subsequent border on the layer (Fig. 5; Pg. 10, 1st ¶; second laser treatment on first layer 102) to define a subsequent internal zone (Fig. 5; Pg. 10, 1st ¶; second laser treatment increases surface roughness on surface of 102, which promotes adhesion by constraining the material of second layer 502 to the surface of 102); and depositing a subsequent material on the layer (Fig. 5; Pg. 10, 1st ¶; second layer 502 is deposited on first layer 102), the subsequent material being deposited in the subsequent internal zone to form a subsequent layer (Fig. 5; Pg. 10, 3rd ¶; second layer 502 is deposited in the internal zone defined by the surface of the laser treated 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the embodiment of Figure 6b of Tranter with the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 5 of Tranter to provide laser writing a subsequent border on the layer to define a subsequent internal zone; and depositing a subsequent material on the layer, the subsequent material being deposited in the subsequent internal zone to form a subsequent layer. As shown above, the laser writing of the subsequent border would impede a flow of the subsequent material out of the subsequent internal zone. This modification amounts to mere duplication of the process steps to build another layer on top of the previous layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the modification for the purposes of manufacturing multilayer printed circuit boards with greater complexity of design.
Modified Tranter does not disclose the subsequent material on the layer is deposited prior to a complete curing of the layer.
Furthermore, Williams teaches a method of manufacturing multi-layered printed circuit devices ([0020]) comprising defining boundaries for a layer using a laser ([0088]), depositing the layer ([0088-0089]), partially curing the layer ([0089]) and repeating the process for subsequent layers ([0088-0089]). The printed circuit device may be completely cured after the layers are formed ([0089]).
Tranter and Williams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Tranter with the teachings of Williams to provide the subsequent material on the layer is deposited prior to a complete curing of the layer. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow the printed circuit device to be formed precisely in minimal time (Williams [0089]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein Tranter further discloses the border defines a perimeter of the layer (Fig. 6b; 601a-e define a perimeter of cured ink in regions 101a-e).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein Tranter further discloses the border comprises an impeding surface on the receiving surface, and wherein the flow of the material across the impeding surface is slower than the flow of the material across the substrate (Pg. 6, 2nd ¶ and Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; laser surface roughening to form borders 601a-e creates excessive surface roughness that increases contact angle, which in turn reduces the tendency of the liquid ink to spread out).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein Tranter further discloses the flow of the material is impeded by the border for a delay time that is at least longer than a time to at least partially cure the material (Fig. 6b; Pg. 11, 2nd ¶ and Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; laser surface roughening forms hydrophobic guard tracks of the borders 601a-e, which in turn constrain the liquid ink in regions 101a-e and then the ink in the regions 101a-e is cured).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 4, wherein Tranter further discloses the delay time is at least longer than a time to at least partially cure the material (Fig. 6b; Pg. 11, 2nd ¶ and Pg. 14, 3rd ¶; laser surface roughening forms hydrophobic guard tracks of the borders 601a-e, which in turn constrain the liquid ink in regions 101a-e and then the ink in the regions 101a-e is cured) and depositing at least one subsequent layer on the layer (Pg. 9, 4th ¶; second layer may be deposited on first layer).
Modified Tranter does not explicitly disclose the delay time is at least longer than a time to deposit the at least one subsequent layer on the layer.
However, Tranter further teaches increased surface roughness resulting from a laser surface roughening treatment of layer 102 promotes adhesion of the ink of the subsequent layer 502 (Pg. 10, 1st ¶) and this provides the advantage of avoiding the need for noxious chemicals to remove unwanted regions of the ink (Pg. 2, 5th ¶). As such, the subsequent layer 502 can be deposited and cured before spilling over the edge of layer 102. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention from figure 5 of Tranter that the delay time would have to be at least longer than a time to deposit the at least one subsequent layer on the layer as otherwise the ink of the subsequent layer 502 would spill over the edge of layer 102 before the ink of the subsequent layer 502 is cured.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
The embodiment disclosed in Figure 6b of Tranter does not disclose the border is embedded in the substrate.
However, Tranter teaches an alternative embodiment in Figures 7a-b wherein the border is embedded in the substrate (Fig. 7a-b; Pg. 13, 2nd ¶; laser may be used to form a channel in the substrate, wherein a border of the channel retains the ink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the embodiment of Figure 6b of Tranter with the teachings of the embodiment of Figures 7a-b of Tranter to provide the border is embedded in the substrate. Doing so would provide the advantage of allowing the ink to be captively retained within the substrate and allow the ink to be flush with the surface of the substrate (Pg. 13, 2nd ¶).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
The embodiment disclosed in Figure 6b of Tranter does not disclose using laser heating to form an interface area on the layer, the layer being hydrophobic, the interface area being non-hydrophobic properties; and depositing a hydrophilic material on the interface area.
However, Tranter teaches an alternative embodiment in Figure 5 for multilayer deposition, where laser heating is used to form an interface area on the layer (Pg. 9, 3rd ¶; treating cured ink 102 with laser light to treat the surface), the layer being hydrophobic (Pg. 10, 1st ¶), the interface area having non-hydrophobic properties (Pg. 10, 1st ¶; second laser treatment increases surface roughness that promotes ink adhesion, i.e. reduces hydrophobicity); and depositing a hydrophilic material on the interface area (Pg. 9, 4th ¶ and Pg. 14, 1st ¶; depositing second layer 502 of ink, wherein ink may be based on conductive polymers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the embodiment of Figure 6b of Tranter with the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 5 of Tranter to provide using laser heating to form an interface area on the layer, the layer being hydrophobic, the interface area being non-hydrophobic properties; and depositing a hydrophilic material on the interface area. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of multilayer printed circuit boards with greater complexity of design.
Regarding claim 13, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 12, wherein Tranter further discloses the hydrophilic material comprises a conductive ink (Pg. 14, 1st ¶; ink may be based on conductive polymers).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
The embodiment disclosed in Figure 6b of Tranter does not disclose laser writing a third border on the subsequent layer; and depositing an uncured third material to form an encapsulating layer, wherein the encapsulating layer has a perimeter defined by the third border, depositing the uncured third material prior to a complete curing of the subsequent layer.
However, Tranter teaches an alternative embodiment in Figure 5 for multilayer deposition, where laser writing a third border on the subsequent layer (Fig. 5; Pg. 9, 4th ¶ and Pg. 10, 1st ¶; third laser treatment on second layer 502, wherein which promotes adhesion by constraining the material of third layer 503 to the surface of 502); and depositing an uncured third material to form an encapsulating layer (Fig. 5; Pg. 9, 4th ¶; third layer 503 is deposited on second layer 502, wherein third layer 503 completely covers second layer 502), wherein the encapsulating layer has a perimeter defined by the third border (Fig. 5; Pg. 10, 3rd ¶; third layer 503 is deposited in the internal zone defined by the surface of the laser treated 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the modified embodiment of Figure 6b of Tranter with the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 5 of Tranter to provide laser writing a third border on the subsequent layer; and depositing an uncured third material to form an encapsulating layer, wherein the encapsulating layer has a perimeter defined by the third border. This modification amounts to mere duplication of the process steps to build another layer on top of the previous layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the modification for the purposes of manufacturing multilayer printed circuit boards with greater complexity of design.
Modified Tranter does not disclose depositing the uncured third material prior to a complete curing of the subsequent layer.
However, Williams teaches a method of manufacturing multi-layered printed circuit devices ([0020]) comprising defining boundaries for a layer using a laser ([0088]), depositing the layer ([0088-0089]), partially curing the layer ([0089]) and repeating the process for subsequent layers ([0088-0089]). The printed circuit device may be completely cured after the layers are formed ([0089]).
Tranter and Williams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tranter with the teachings of Williams to provide depositing the uncured third material prior to a complete curing of the subsequent layer. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow the printed circuit device to be formed precisely in minimal time (Williams [0089]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 15 to fabricate a device with a first layer and a second layer (Tranter Fig. 5; Pg. 1, 1st ¶ and Pg. 9, 4th ¶; making multilayer PCBs with at least two layers), wherein the second layer is one of the subsequent layer (Tranter Fig. 5; layer 502) and the encapsulating layer (Tranter Fig. 5; layer 503), and wherein the first layer is correspondingly one of the layer (Tranter Fig. 5; layer 102) and the subsequent layer (Tranter Fig. 5; layer 502) and Williams further teaches depositing the second layer immediately adjacent to the first layer prior to a complete curing of the first layer ([0088-0089]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 16, wherein Tranter further discloses embedding at least one element between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 5; Pg. 10, 3rd ¶; interface layer 511 or 512 in between 102, 502 and 503 respectively).
Regarding claim 19, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 17, wherein Tranter further discloses at least one portion of the first layer comprises a modified material, the modified material is a hydrophobic material (Pg. 10, 1st ¶; 102 is hydrophobic) and a material compositionally different from the first layer (Pg. 10, 3rd ¶; interface layer 511 or 512 has modified surface chemistry making it compositionally different from 102, 502 and 503), and wherein the modified material is part of the at least one element (Pg. 10, 3rd ¶; interface layer 511 or 512 has modified surface chemistry making it compositionally different from 102, 502 and 503).
Regarding claim 20, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 16.
Modified Tranter does not disclose the first layer and the second layer are in crosslinking bond with one another such that the first layer and the second layer are indistinguishable from one another.
However, Williams teaches a method of manufacturing multi-layered printed circuit devices ([0020]) comprising defining boundaries for a layer using a laser ([0088]), depositing the layer ([0088-0089]), partially curing the layer ([0089]) and repeating the process for subsequent layers ([0088-0089]). The layers formed bond to one another ([0076]) and the printed circuit device may be completely cured after the layers are formed ([0089]).
Tranter and Williams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tranter with the teachings of Williams to provide the first layer and the second layer are in crosslinking bond with one another such that the first layer and the second layer are indistinguishable from one another. Doing so would allow the printed circuit device to be formed precisely in minimal time (Williams [0089]).
Claims 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tranter et al. (WO 2007045436 A1; hereafter Tranter), in view of Williams (US 20070062033 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tan et al. (CN 112035015 A; hereafter Tan; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein Tranter further discloses the substrate comprises polyimide (Pg. 16, claim 19; substrate 100 comprises polyimide).
Tranter does not disclose the laser writing comprises forming laser-induced porous graphene as the border.
However, Tan teaches a hybrid manufacturing method (Fig. 1) comprising forming laser-induced porous graphene ([0041]; laser induction to produce graphene pattern) as a border (Fig. 1; [0041, 0043]; graphene pattern area) on a polyimide substrate ([0041]; polyimide film substrate 101). The border defines an internal zone for depositing uncured material ([0043]; polyimide prepolymer is deposited in the graphene pattern area).
Tranter and Tan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of hybrid manufacturing to manufacture printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Tranter with the teachings of Tan to provide the laser writing comprises forming laser-induced porous graphene as the border. Doing so would provide graphene printed circuit devices having better performance and bending resistance (Tan [0069]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
While Tranter discloses the material may comprise polymer (Pg. 16, claim 18), modified Tranter does not explicitly disclose the material comprises polyimide.
However, Tan teaches a hybrid manufacturing method (Fig. 1) comprising forming laser-induced porous graphene ([0041]; laser induction to produce graphene pattern) as a border (Fig. 1; [0041, 0043]; graphene pattern area) on a polyimide substrate ([0041]; polyimide film substrate 101). The border defines an internal zone for depositing uncured polyimide ([0043]; polyimide prepolymer is deposited in the graphene pattern area).
Tranter and Tan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of hybrid manufacturing to manufacture printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Tranter with the teachings of Tan to provide the material comprises polyimide. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would provide graphene printed circuit devices having better performance and bending resistance (Tan [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
Modified Tranter does not explicitly disclose the border is oleophobic.
However, Tan teaches a hybrid manufacturing method (Fig. 1) comprising forming laser-induced porous graphene ([0041]; laser induction to produce graphene pattern) as an oleophobic border (Fig. 1; [0041, 0043]; graphene pattern area, wherein graphene is oleophobic) on a polyimide substrate ([0041]; polyimide film substrate 101). The border defines an internal zone for depositing uncured material ([0043]; polyimide prepolymer is deposited in the graphene pattern area).
Tranter and Tan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of hybrid manufacturing to manufacture printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tranter with the teachings of Tan to provide the border is oleophobic. Doing so would provide graphene printed circuit devices having better performance and bending resistance (Tan [0069]).
Claims 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tranter et al. (WO 2007045436 A1; hereafter Tranter), in view of Williams (US 20070062033 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 213472209 U; hereafter Zhou; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
While Tranter discloses the material may be metal, polymer, conductive, dielectric, resistive or semiconductive (Pg. 13, last 2 lines and Pg. 13, 1st and 3rd ¶), modified Tranter does not explicitly disclose the material comprises a non-thixotropic material.
However, Zhou teaches it was well known in the art of manufacturing printed circuit devices ([0029]) to selectively deposit non-thixotropic material to form a layer ([0117]; material printed may comprise PDMS).
Tranter and Zhou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Tranter with the teachings of Zhou to provide the material comprises a non-thixotropic material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Non-thixotropic materials, such as PDMS, are well known as a suitable material for forming encapsulation layers in printed circuits (Zhou [0130]) and selecting them as the material would allow for the manufacture of flexible printed circuit devices in a cheap and cost-effective manner (Zhou [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
While Tranter discloses the material may be metal, polymer, conductive, dielectric, resistive or semiconductive (Pg. 13, last 2 lines and Pg. 13, 1st and 3rd ¶), modified Tranter does not explicitly disclose the material comprises polydimethylsiloxane.
However, Zhou teaches it was well known in the art of manufacturing printed circuit devices ([0029]) to selectively deposit polydimethylsiloxane to form a layer ([0117]; material printed may comprise PDMS).
Tranter and Zhou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Tranter with the teachings of Zhou to provide the material comprises polydimethylsiloxane. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Polydimethylsiloxane is well known as a suitable material for forming encapsulation layers in printed circuits (Zhou [0130]) and selecting them as the material would allow for the manufacture of flexible printed circuit devices in a cheap and cost-effective manner (Zhou [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tranter discloses the method as recited in claim 16.
While Tranter discloses the material of the first layer and the second layer may be metal, polymer, conductive, dielectric, resistive or semiconductive (Pg. 13, last 2 lines and Pg. 13, 1st and 3rd ¶), modified Tranter does not explicitly disclose the material comprises a non-thixotropic material.
However, Zhou teaches it was well known in the art of manufacturing printed circuit devices ([0029]) to selectively deposit non-thixotropic material to form a layer ([0117]; material printed may comprise PDMS).
Tranter and Zhou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing printed circuit devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Tranter with the teachings of Zhou to provide the material comprises a non-thixotropic material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Non-thixotropic materials, such as PDMS, are well known as a suitable material for forming encapsulation layers in printed circuits (Zhou [0130]) and selecting them as the material would allow for the manufacture of flexible printed circuit devices in a cheap and cost-effective manner (Zhou [0005]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights