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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 20 have been amended. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1-6, and 8-20 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-9, filed 09/28/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are not persuasive.
With respect to: “Xu's brush elements 122, in turn, do not satisfy "wherein the carrier layer and the plurality of brush bristles form a unitary body”, the examiner disagrees. The disclosure of Xu is consistent with Merriam-Webster definition of “unitary”: “1a: of or relating to a unit”.
With respect to: “the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer.”, as disclosed below, the modulus does not have support in the specification and as claimed, it is unclear which modulus is required.
With respect to the arguments regarding the newly amended language of “wherein the plurality of brush bristles include a composite including a polymer, an impact modifier, and a stiffening fiber included in the polymer,”, have been considered but are moot because the claims
have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination
of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically
challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 recite: “the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer”. Regarding the modulus, page 5, lines 23-27 specification discloses:
“In some embodiments, the material for the injection molding process may be selected for its rheological, processing, and/or ultimate mechanical properties. For example, the material for the injection molded process may have a sufficiently low glass transition temperature (in its bulk) or melting point such that the material can be properly manipulated and molded. In some embodiments, the material for the injection molding process has a flexural modulus between 0.1 GPa and 5.0 GPa. In some embodiments, the material for the injection molding process has a flexural modulus between 0.1 GPa and 2 GPa. In some embodiments, the material for the injection molding process has a flexural modulus between 0.2 GPa and 1.8 GPa.”
Page 6, lines 18-20 disclose: “In some embodiments, the material used for the injection molding process may include one or more stiffening fibers. These stiffening fibers are fibers having a higher modulus than the base resin in which they are included. These fibers may include, for example, one or more of an aramid fiber or a carbon fiber.”.
What’s recited in the claims does not match with the disclosure of the specification. Resin, which is only disclosed once in the specification, is not always considered a polymer. Additionally, neither the drawings nor the specification disclose the modulus values of the claimed polymer. The examiner believes there is not enough support in the specification for the specificity of the newly amended language of “the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer”. Therefore, it’s new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, and 8-20 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.
With respect to the newly amended language of “the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer”, it is unclear what type of modulus is required for the claimed language. There are 3 types of modulus: Young’s Modulus (E), Bulk Modulus (K), and Shear Modulus (Rigidity Modulus, G).
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 1-6, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20080254722 A1), Chapman (US 4022756 A), and Meyer (US 4959452 A).
Referring to claim 1: Xu teaches a pad conditioning brush (shown in Figs. 1A, 2A, and 2B), comprising:
a carrier layer (102/104);
a plurality of brush bristles (112/122) extending from the carrier layer (102/104);
wherein the plurality of brush bristles are abrasive particle-free (“Since the hardness of the plastic nodules is less than that of the conventional diamond abrasives, but is still sufficient to perform the functions of retexturing the pad surface, the application of plastic nodules can avoid being too aggressive on the polishing pad, thus prolonging the pad life.” [0021]; “The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto, and may be varied in accordance with the requirement of the rigidity of the brush elements 122” [0025]);
wherein the carrier layer and the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) form a unitary body (shown in Fig. 2B; Merriam-Webster definition of “unitary”: “1a: of or relating to a unit”);
where the pad conditioning brush has sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 20 Shore A (“pad conditioners using plastic nodules in place of the diamond abrasives for conditioning a CMP polishing pad, especially for a soft polishing pad. One example of a soft pad is a pad having a Shore A hardness equal to or less than 70.” [0021]);
and wherein the plurality of brush bristles include a composite including a polymer (“materials such as PPS, PET polyimide or polyamide-imide, and the material forming the base plate 102 can be the same as or different from that forming the plastic nodules 112” [0024]; “The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto, and may be varied in accordance with the requirement of the rigidity of the brush elements 122. For the soft PET fibers, an adhesive film (not shown) is used to adhere PET fibers to the inner circle of the metal disk 100 with or without the base plate 104” [0025]; “wherein the material forming the plastic nodules is selected from the group consisting of PPS, PET, polyimide and polyamide-imide” claim 11), and a stiffening fiber (“PET fibers” [0025]) included in (“consisting of” claim 11) the polymer.
But is silent on the brush bristles including a composite including the polymer and specifically an impact modifier; and the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer.
Chapman teaches the “Nylon 66 fibers have a lower modulus than PET fibers” Col. 1, lines 39-40.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulus of Xu with the modulus as taught by for the purpose of having a material which is both durable while appropriate for the intended purpose while preventing damage.
Meyer teaches the composite including the polymer (“polyamide mixtures with known impact modifiers” Col. 6, lines 13-14) and specifically an impact modifier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite of Xu with the composite including the impact modifier as taught by Meyer for the purpose of giving rise to products with exceptionally high impact strength and resistance at low temperatures (Col. 6, lines 14-15 of Meyer).
Referring to claim 2: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, wherein the pad conditioning brush has a working surface (working surface of 102/104) defined by the side of the carrier layer from which the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) extend, and wherein the working surface (working surface of 102/104) of the pad conditioning brush is metal-free “The material forming the brush elements may include PET or nylon, and the height of each of the brush elements may be greater than the height of each of the plastic nodules.” [0008]
“and the material forming the base plate 102 can be the same as or different from that forming the plastic nodules 112.” [0024]; “For the nylon brush elements in the form of bristles on top of the base plate 104 such as a polypropylene disk” [0025].
Referring to claim 3: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, wherein the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) include a first material and a second material (“The base plate 102 may be made of materials such as PPS, PET polyimide or polyamide-imide, and the material forming the base plate 102 can be the same as or different from that forming the plastic nodules 112” [0024]; “The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto, and may be varied in accordance with the requirement of the rigidity of the brush elements 122” [0025]) at least partially overlaying the first material, wherein the second material is harder than the first material (“the pad conditioner has a plastic abrasive portion 110 having a first hardness and a brush portion 120 having a second hardness less than the first hardness” [0025]).
Referring to claim 4: Xu discloses the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the plurality of brush bristles are specifically hydrophilic.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: hydrophilic or hydrophobic brush bristles; further, the prior art teaches brush bristles.
Therefore, modifying the pad conditioning brush of Xu to have specifically hydrophilic brush bristles, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the pad conditioning brush of Xu with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the Applicant’s specification does not show the criticality to the material’s property, it would have been obvious to have modified the pad conditioning brush of Xu to have brush bristles specifically being hydrophilic for the purpose of having the bristles absorb the working polishing liquid to minimize heat or improving its service life.
Referring to claim 5: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the pad conditioning brush has sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 80 Shore A.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: the pad conditioning brush has sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 80 Shore A, less than 80 Shore A, or greater than 80 Shore A; further, the prior art teaches its intent of operating in “one example” with “a pad having a Shore A hardness equal to or less than 70” [0021].
Therefore, modifying the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have the pad conditioning brush having sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 80 Shore A, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the Applicant’s specification does not show the criticality to the material’s property, it would have been obvious to have modified the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 80 Shore A for the purpose of having the adequate stiffness to achieve the intended result.
Referring to claim 6: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the pad conditioning brush has sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 65 Shore D.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: the pad conditioning brush has sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 65 Shore D, less than 65 Shore D, or greater than 65 Shore D A; further, the prior art teaches its intent of operating in “one example” with “a pad having a Shore A hardness equal to or less than 70” [0021].
Therefore, modifying the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have the pad conditioning brush having sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 65 Shore D, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the Applicant’s specification does not show the criticality to the material’s property, it would have been obvious to have modified the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have sufficient stiffness to texture a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a hardness of 65 Shore D for the purpose of having the adequate stiffness to achieve the intended result.
Referring to claim 8: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, wherein the polymer includes an aliphatic polyamide (“The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto” [0025]; nylon is known to be an aliphatic polyamide).
Referring to claim 10: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, wherein the plurality of brush bristles includes bristles that have a regular shape (“The shape of each of the plastic nodules 112 can be, for example, a rectangular prism as shown in FIG. 1B. However, other types of prisms or the like are also applicable to the plastic nodules contemplated herein. For example, the plastic nodules may be rectangular, square, circular, oval, or kidney-shape, among others.” [0024]).
Referring to claim 11: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 10, wherein the plurality of brush bristles include bristles that have a cylindrical, conical, or tetrahedral shape (“The shape of each of the plastic nodules 112 can be, for example, a rectangular prism as shown in FIG. 1B. However, other types of prisms or the like are also applicable to the plastic nodules contemplated herein. For example, the plastic nodules may be rectangular, square, circular, oval, or kidney-shape, among others.” [0024]).
Referring to claim 12: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, wherein the plurality of brush bristles include bristles that have an irregular shape (“The shape of each of the plastic nodules 112 can be, for example, a rectangular prism as shown in FIG. 1B. However, other types of prisms or the like are also applicable to the plastic nodules contemplated herein. For example, the plastic nodules may be rectangular, square, circular, oval, or kidney-shape, among others.” [0024]).
Referring to claim 13: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, wherein the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) include bristles that have a combination of shapes (see figs. 2A and 2B; “The shape of each of the plastic nodules 112 can be, for example, a rectangular prism as shown in FIG. 1B. However, other types of prisms or the like are also applicable to the plastic nodules contemplated herein. For example, the plastic nodules may be rectangular, square, circular, oval, or kidney-shape, among others” [0024]).
Referring to claim 14: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the plurality of brush bristles include bristles that have an aspect ratio between 1.5:1 and 10:1.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: bristles that have an aspect ratio between 1.5:1 and 10:1, greater than 10:1, or less than 1.5:1; further, the prior art teaches brush bristles with different shapes [0024].
Therefore, modifying the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have the bristles that have an aspect ratio between 1.5:1 and 10:1, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the Applicant’s specification does not show the criticality to the material’s property, it would have been obvious to have modified the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have to have the bristles that have an aspect ratio between 1.5:1 and 10:1 for the purpose of having the adequate surface structure for achieving the intended result.
Referring to claim 15: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the plurality of brush bristles each have an aspect ratio greater than 1.5:1.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: bristles that have an aspect ratio greater than 1.5:1, equal to 1.5:1, or less than 1.5:1; further, the prior art teaches brush bristles with different shapes [0024].
Therefore, modifying the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have the bristles that have an aspect ratio greater than 1.5:1, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the Applicant’s specification does not show the criticality to the material’s property, it would have been obvious to have modified the pad conditioning brush of Xu as modified to have to have the bristles that have an aspect ratio greater than 1.5:1 for the purpose of having the adequate surface structure for achieving the intended result.
Referring to claim 16: Xu teaches a pad conditioning brush (shown in Figs. 1A, 2A, and 2B), comprising:
a carrier layer (102/104);
a plurality of brush bristles (112/122) extending from the carrier layer (102/104);
wherein the plurality of brush bristles are abrasive particle-free (“Since the hardness of the plastic nodules is less than that of the conventional diamond abrasives, but is still sufficient to perform the functions of retexturing the pad surface, the application of plastic nodules can avoid being too aggressive on the polishing pad, thus prolonging the pad life.” [0021]; “The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto, and may be varied in accordance with the requirement of the rigidity of the brush elements 122” [0025]);
wherein the carrier layer and the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) form a unitary body (shown in Fig. 2B; Merriam-Webster definition of “unitary”: “1a: of or relating to a unit”);
wherein the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) include a composite including a polymer (“materials such as PPS, PET polyimide or polyamide-imide, and the material forming the base plate 102 can be the same as or different from that forming the plastic nodules 112” [0024]; “The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto” [0025]), and a stiffening fiber (“PET fibers” [0025]) included in (“consisting of” claim 11) the polymer.
But is silent on the brush bristles including a composite including the polymer and specifically an impact modifier; and the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer.
Chapman teaches the “Nylon 66 fibers have a lower modulus than PET fibers” Col. 1, lines 39-40.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulus of Xu with the modulus as taught by for the purpose of having a material which is both durable while appropriate for the intended purpose while preventing damage.
Meyer teaches the composite including the polymer (“polyamide mixtures with known impact modifiers” Col. 6, lines 13-14) and specifically an impact modifier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite of Xu with the composite including the impact modifier as taught by Meyer for the purpose of giving rise to products with exceptionally high impact strength and resistance at low temperatures (Col. 6, lines 14-15 of Meyer).
Referring to claim 17: Xu as modified teaches a method of conditioning a chemical mechanical polishing pad (“for conditioning a CMP polishing pad” [0021]), comprising:
providing a chemical mechanical polishing pad (“CMP polishing pad” [0021]);
providing a pad conditioning brush (shown in Figs. 1A, 2A, and 2B) as in claim 1 (see claim 1 above);
contacting the pad conditioning brush (shown in Figs. 1A, 2A, and 2B) to the chemical mechanical polishing pad;
and texturing (“for conditioning a CMP polishing pad” [0021]) the chemical mechanical polishing pad.
Referring to claim 18: Xu as modified teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the chemical mechanical polishing pad has a hardness between 20 Shore A and 75 Shore D (“pad conditioners using plastic nodules in place of the diamond abrasives for conditioning a CMP polishing pad, especially for a soft polishing pad. One example of a soft pad is a pad having a Shore A hardness equal to or less than 70.” [0021]).
Referring to claim 19: Xu as modified teaches the method of claim 17, wherein contacting the pad conditioning brush to the chemical mechanical polishing pad occurs in the presence of a slurry
(“the brush portion is used for removing slurry by-products accumulated in the pad groovings.” [0022]).
Referring to claim 20: Xu teaches a method of conditioning a chemical mechanical polishing pad (“pad conditioners using plastic nodules in place of the diamond abrasives for conditioning a CMP polishing pad, especially for a soft polishing pad.” [0021]), comprising:
providing a pad conditioner (shown in Figs. 1A, 2A, and 2B) including a unitary working surface (working surface of 102/104; Merriam-Webster definition of “unitary”: “1a: of or relating to a unit”) that is metal-free and abrasive particle-free (“The material forming the brush elements may include PET or nylon, and the height of each of the brush elements may be greater than the height of each of the plastic nodules.” [0008]; “pad conditioners using plastic nodules in place of the diamond abrasives for conditioning a CMP polishing pad, especially for a soft polishing pad. One example of a soft pad is a pad having a Shore A hardness equal to or less than 70.” [0021];
“and the material forming the base plate 102 can be the same as or different from that forming the plastic nodules 112.” [0024]; “For the nylon brush elements in the form of bristles on top of the base plate 104 such as a polypropylene disk” [0025];
wherein the unitary working surface is formed by a carrier layer (102/104) and a plurality of brush bristles (112/122) extending from the carrier layer (102/104), the plurality of brush bristles (112/122) including a composite including a polymer (“materials such as PPS, PET polyimide or polyamide-imide, and the material forming the base plate 102 can be the same as or different from that forming the plastic nodules 112” [0024]; “The brush elements 122 can be made of PET or nylon in the form of fibers or bristles, but are not limited to thereto, and may be varied in accordance with the requirement of the rigidity of the brush elements 122. For the soft PET fibers, an adhesive film (not shown) is used to adhere PET fibers to the inner circle of the metal disk 100 with or without the base plate 104” [0025]; “wherein the material forming the plastic nodules is selected from the group consisting of PPS, PET, polyimide and polyamide-imide” claim 11), and a stiffening fiber (“PET fibers” [0025]) included in the polymer;
providing a chemical mechanical polishing pad (“CMP polishing pad” [0021]);
contacting the pad conditioner to the chemical mechanical polishing pad;
and texturing (“pad conditioners using plastic nodules in place of the diamond abrasives for conditioning a CMP polishing pad, especially for a soft polishing pad.” [0021]) the chemical mechanical polishing pad.
But is silent on the brush bristles including a composite including the polymer and specifically an impact modifier; and the stiffening fiber having a higher modulus than the polymer.
Chapman teaches the “Nylon 66 fibers have a lower modulus than PET fibers” Col. 1, lines 39-40.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulus of Xu with the modulus as taught by for the purpose of having a material which is both durable while appropriate for the intended purpose while preventing damage.
Meyer teaches the composite including the polymer (“polyamide mixtures with known impact modifiers” Col. 6, lines 13-14) and specifically an impact modifier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite of Xu with the composite including the impact modifier as taught by Meyer for the purpose of giving rise to products with exceptionally high impact strength and resistance at low temperatures (Col. 6, lines 14-15 of Meyer).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20080254722 A1), Chapman (US 4022756 A), and Meyer (US 4959452 A), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Nagafuchi (US 20120028552 A1).
Referring to claim 9: Xu as modified teaches the pad conditioning brush of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the stiffening fiber specifically includes at least one of a meta-aramid fiber or a carbon fiber.
Nagafuchi teaches a carbon stiffening fiber (“Specific examples of the core material include metal lines, wires, cotton threads and carbon fibers” [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brush bristles of Xu as modified with the stiffening member as taught by Nagafuchi for the purpose of having the bristles with the adequate stiffness to achieve the intended result.
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
