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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 02/11/2026. With respect to the rejection of amended claims 1 and 22 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously cited reference Murayama et al. (US Pub 2022/0065697 A1) in view of Verschuren et al. (US Pub 2011/0188030 A1)(hereinafter, “Verschuren”), further in view of Chambion et al. (“Curved sensors for compact high-resolution wide field designs: prototype demonstration and optical characterization”, 2018)(hereinafter, “Chambion”), the details of which can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (US Pub 2022/0065697 A1)(hereinafter, “Murayama”) in view of Verschuren et al. (US Pub 2011/0188030 A1)(hereinafter, “Verschuren”), further in view of Chambion et al. (“Curved sensors for compact high-resolution wide field designs: prototype demonstration and optical characterization”, 2018)(hereinafter, “Chambion”).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama teaches a sensor apparatus (1), comprising:
a crystal (the combination of the optical waveguide 2 and the metal thin film 3, [0090]) having at least one face arranged and designed to be in direct contact with a sample(discloses uses a metal thin film 3 on an optical waveguide 2 in contact with the sample S, [0088] and [0097]);
at least one light source (10) arranged and designed to emit and direct at least a first light beam (L1) and a second light beam (L3) into the crystal (the combination of the optical waveguide 2 and the metal thin film 3) such that the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) are totally internally reflected at the interface (evanescent wave at metal thin film, [0096]) between the crystal and the sample (discloses L1 and L3 propagate within the optical waveguide and are totally internally reflected at the interface with the sample S, [0096]), with the first light beam travelling along a first optical path (discloses L1 travels inside optical waveguide 2, guided by reflective surfaces, interacts with the metal thin film, [0088]) in the crystal and the second light beam travelling along a second optical path (discloses L3 is transmitted into the optical waveguide and interacts with the sample S, used to obtain spectroscopic information from the sample, [0097]) in the crystal, the first optical path being different from the second optical path in at least one optical property(discloses L1 is UV interacts mostly with surface attached material via evanescent wave; L3 is IR, probes bulk sample via absorption spectrum, [0096]); and detect the first light beam and the second light beam which have been reflected at the interface (discloses first detection unit 20 detects L2, second detection unit 40 detects L4, ([0092] and [0097]).
However, Murayama fails to disclose at least one detector comprising a curved linear array, wherein the at least one detector is configured to: measure the refractive index of the sample by observing a change in a penetration depth of the first light beam and the second light beam totally internally reflected at the interface between the crystal and the sample as a function of a respective incident angle of the first light beam and the second light beam.
Verschuren teaches wherein the at least one detector is configured to: measure the refractive index of the sample ([0069-0078]) by observing a change in a penetration depth (discloses models evanescent decay depth changing with refractive index, [0069]) of the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L2) totally internally reflected at the interface ([0059]) between the crystal and the sample (discloses carrier 11, sample liquid and contact surface 12, [0061-0062]) as a function of a respective incident angle of the first light beam and the second light beam(discloses refractive index measurement depends on scanning θ, θ dependent evanescent decay and θ dependent reflectivity, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate TIR evanescent penetration depth sensing of Verschuren to Murayama to improve sensitivity.
Murayama in view of Verschuren fails to disclose at least one detector comprising a curved linear array.
Chambion teaches at least one detector comprising a curved linear array (discloses CMOS sensor, section Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a curved linear array of Chambion to Verschuren in view of Murayama to enhance accuracy in evanescent field based critical angle detection.
Regarding claim 3, Murayama teaches both of the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) are totally internally reflected at the interface between the crystal and the sample (discloses L1 and L3 propagate within the optical waveguide and are totally internally reflected at the interface with the sample S, [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Murayama teaches wherein the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) have a first incident angle (L1 incident angle at front surface 2c determined by θ1, [0044]) and a second incident angle (L3 incident angle at the same interface determined by prism-coupled diagonal incidence, [0054] and [0057]) at the interface, respectively, the first incident angle not being equal to the second incident angle (discloses L1 reaches the crystal-sample interface at an incident angle defined by internal reflective surfaces of the optical waveguide, while the L3 is incident at a diagonal, variable angle through a prism, [0044], [0046], [0054] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Murayama teaches wherein the first incident angle(L1 incident on the boundary between optical waveguide 2 and sample S, [0046]) is greater than a critical angle (discloses generating an evanescent wave, inherently requires TIR, [0046]) of reflection for the interface between the crystal and the sample ([0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Murayama teaches wherein the sample comprises a fluid sample (discloses that the sample S includes a liquid, [0035]) from a hydrocarbon well (functionally includes hydrocarbon fluids, [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Murayama teaches wherein a number of internal reflections at the interface in the first optical path (L1, [0039]) is different from the number of internal reflections at the interface in the second optical path (discloses L1 and L3 propagating along separate paths in the optical waveguide, incident at different angles, which inherently allows different numbers of total internal reflections, [0044], [0054] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 8, Murayama teaches further comprising: at least one optical deflection device (33) in the first optical path or the second optical path (L3, [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one optical deflection device comprises a plurality of reflectors (discloses light guide component 32 inherently uses multiple reflections, [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one light source comprises a first light source (10) which emits the first light beam (L1, discloses first irradiation unit 10 irradiates the first irradiation light L1) and a second light source (30) which emits the second light beam (the second irradiation unit 30, irradiates the second irradiation light L3, [0068-0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one detector comprises a first detector(20) configured to detect the first light beam and a second detector (40) configured to detect the second light beam (discloses first detection unit 20 that detects first measured light L2 from first irradiation light L1, second detection unit 40 that detects second measured light L4 from second irradiation light L3, [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one light source (10) is arranged and designed to further emit and direct at least one additional light beam other than the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) into the crystal (the combination of the optical waveguide 2 and the metal thin film 3), such that the at least one additional light beam is totally internally reflected ([0090]) at the interface between the crystal and the sample([0092]), and the at least one detector(20) being arranged and designed to detect the at least one additional light beam which has been totally internally reflected at the interface([0092]); and
the at least one additional light beam travels along an additional optical path other than each of the first optical path and the second optical path (discloses light travel along different optical paths depending on entry angle, incidence side, or reflective surfaces, [0106-0107]), the additional optical path having a different number of reflections as compared to the first optical path (L1) and the second optical path (discloses L1 and L3 propagating along separate paths in the optical waveguide, incident at different angles, which inherently allows different numbers of total internal reflections, [0044], [0054] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 16, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one light source (31) is arranged and designed to further emit and direct at least one additional light beam other than the first light beam and the second light beam (L3) into the crystal (the combination of the optical waveguide 2 and the metal thin film 3), such that the at least one additional light beam is totally internally reflected at the interface between the crystal and the sample ([0029] and [0051-0052]), and the at least one detector(43) being arranged and designed to detect the at least one additional light beam which has been totally internally reflected at the interface([0053]; and
the at least one additional light beam travels along an additional optical path other than each of the first optical path and the second optical path (discloses light travel along different optical paths depending on entry angle, incidence side, or reflective surfaces, [0106-0107]), the additional optical path having a different incident angle as compared to the first optical path (L1) and the second optical path(discloses L1 and L3 propagating along separate paths in the optical waveguide, incident at different angles, which inherently allows different numbers of total internal reflections, [0044], [0054] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 17, Murayama teaches wherein each of the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam(L3) has a wavelength in a range of 0.4 μm to 15 μm (L3 Near-IR, [0097]).
Regarding claim 18, Murayama teaches further comprising: a processer (80) arranged and designed to acquire attenuated intensities (discloses obtains absorption spectrum info from detected measured light, [0068-0069] and [0085]) of the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) detected by the at least one detector(20/40) and determine a concentration of at least one component in the sample(discloses determining component composition, component ratios, absorption coefficients of a sample based on detected absorption spectra,[0032], [0038], [0056], and [0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one optical property is an optical path length (inherently defined by guided propagation, refractive index, reflections, [0041] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 20, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one optical property is incident angle(θ1 and θ2, [0044] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 21, Murayama teaches wherein the at least one optical property is a number of total internal reflections (“the first irradiation light L1 transmits while being completely reflected inside the optical waveguide 2”, [0044], “the first irradiation light L1 is reflected in the optical waveguide 2 is not limited”, [0046]) at the interface ([0054]).
Regarding claim 22, Murayama teaches a method for measuring a sample ([0069]), comprising:
arranging the sample to be in direct contact with at least one face of a crystal (the combination of the optical waveguide 2 and the metal thin film 3, [0090], discloses uses a metal thin film 3 on an optical waveguide 2 in contact with the sample S, [0088] and [0097]);
producing and directing a first light beam (L1) and a second light beam (L3) into the crystal (the combination of the optical waveguide 2 and the metal thin film 3), such that the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) are totally internally reflected at an interface (evanescent wave at metal thin film, [0096]) between the crystal and the sample (discloses L1 and L3 propagate within the optical waveguide and are totally internally reflected at the interface with the sample S, [0096]), and such that the first light beam travels along a first optical path (discloses L1 travels inside optical waveguide 2, guided by reflective surfaces, interacts with the metal thin film, [0088]) in the crystal and the second light beam travels along a second optical path (discloses L3 is transmitted into the optical waveguide and interacts with the sample S, used to obtain spectroscopic information from the sample, [0097]) in the crystal, with the first optical path being different from the second optical path in at least one optical property (discloses L1 is UV interacts mostly with surface attached material via evanescent wave; L3 is IR, probes bulk sample via absorption spectrum, [0096]); and
detecting, the first light beam and the second light beam which have been totally internally reflected at the interface (discloses first detection unit 20 detects L2, second detection unit 40 detects L4, ([0092] and [0097]).
However, Murayama fails to disclose at least one detector comprises a curved linear array, measuring, via the at least one detector, the refractive index of the sample by observing a change in a penetration depth of the first light beam and the second light beam totally internally reflected at the interface between the crystal and the sample as a function of a respective incident angle of the first light beam and the second light beam.
Verschuren teaches measuring, via the at least one detector, the refractive index of the sample ([0069-0078]) by observing a change in a penetration depth (discloses models evanescent decay depth changing with refractive index, [0069]) of the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L2) totally internally reflected at the interface ([0059]) between the crystal and the sample (discloses carrier 11, sample liquid and contact surface 12, [0061-0062]) as a function of a respective incident angle of the first light beam and the second light beam(discloses refractive index measurement depends on scanning θ, θ dependent evanescent decay and θ dependent reflectivity, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate TIR evanescent penetration depth sensing of Verschuren to Murayama to improve sensitivity.
Murayama in view of Verschuren fails to disclose at least one detector comprises a curved linear array.
Chambion teaches at least one detector comprises a curved linear array (discloses CMOS sensor, section Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a curved linear array of Chambion to Verschuren in view of Murayama to enhance accuracy in evanescent field based critical angle detection.
Regarding claim 23, Murayama teaches wherein directing the first light beam (L1) and the second light beam (L3) into the crystal includes directing the first light beam and the second light beam to have at least one of different incident angles at the interface (discloses L1 and L3 propagating along separate paths in the optical waveguide, incident at different angles, which inherently allows different numbers of total internal reflections, [0044], [0054] and [0106]) or a different number of internal reflections within the crystal.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (US Pub 2022/0065697 A1)(hereinafter, “Murayama”) in view of Verschuren et al. (US Pub 2011/0188030 A1)(hereinafter, “Verschuren”), further in view of Chambion et al. (“Curved sensors for compact high-resolution wide field designs: prototype demonstration and optical characterization”, 2018)(hereinafter, “Chambion”).
Regarding claim 10, Murayama teaches the at least one light source including a single light source (10) arranged and designed to emit the first light beam (L1, discloses first irradiation unit 10 irradiates the first irradiation light L1, the second irradiation unit 30, irradiates the second irradiation light L3, [0068-0069]).
Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose the at least one light source including a single light source arranged and designed to emit both the first light beam and the second light beam.
In this case, selecting a given single light source arranged and designed to emit both the first light beam and the second light beam would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve system stability.
Regarding claim 13, Murayama teaches the at least one detector including a single detector (20) that detects the first light beam which have been totally internally reflected at the interface (discloses first detection unit 20 that detects first measured light L2 from first irradiation light L1, second detection unit 40 that detects second measured light L4 from second irradiation light L3, [0042]).
Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose the at least one detector including a single detector that detects the first light beam and the second light beam which have been totally internally reflected at the interface.
In this case, selecting a given a single detector that detects the first light beam and the second light beam which have been totally internally reflected at the interface would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve system stability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (US Pub 2022/0065697 A1)(hereinafter, “Murayama”) in view of Verschuren et al. (US Pub 2011/0188030 A1)(hereinafter, “Verschuren”), further in view of Chambion et al. (“Curved sensors for compact high-resolution wide field designs: prototype demonstration and optical characterization”, 2018)(hereinafter, “Chambion”), further in view of Liu et al. ( US Patent 6,277,330 B1)(hereinafter, “Liu”).
Regarding claim 11, Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose the single light source further including a beam splitter arranged and designed to split a single light beam into the first light beam and the second light beam.
Liu teaches the single light source (20) further including a beam splitter (21) arranged and designed to split a single light beam into the first light beam (probe beam) and the second light beam(reference beam, Col. 9, lines 65-67 and Col. 10, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a beam splitter of Liu to Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion to improve measurement accuracy (Col. 9, lines 65-67 and Col. 10, lines 1-3).
Claims 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (US Pub 2022/0065697 A1)(hereinafter, “Murayama”) in view of Verschuren et al. (US Pub 2011/0188030 A1)(hereinafter, “Verschuren”), further in view of Chambion et al. (“Curved sensors for compact high-resolution wide field designs: prototype demonstration and optical characterization”, 2018)(hereinafter, “Chambion”), further in view of Kodai et al. (WO 2021095458 A1)(hereinafter, “Kodai”).
Regarding claim 24, Murayama teaches further comprising:
calculating at least one property of the sample based at least partially on the difference in absorption (discloses determining component composition, component ratios, absorption coefficients of a sample based on detected absorption spectra,[0032], [0038], [0056], and [0071]).
Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose determining a difference in absorption between the first light beam and the second light beam.
Kodai teaches determining a difference in absorption (discloses the control unit compares intensities of signals to determine refractive index, inherently comparing absorption or transmission between two beams, page 10, lines 25-30, and page 11, lines 54-59) between the first light beam (L21) and the second light beam (L22, page 7, lines 55-58, and page 8, lines 41-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the comparison method of Kodai to Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion to improve measurement sensitivity and accuracy (page 1, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 26, Murayama teaches the first light beam (L1) is totally internally reflected at the interface (evanescent wave at metal thin film, [0096]) between the crystal and the sample (discloses L1 and L3 propagate within the optical waveguide and are totally internally reflected at the interface with the sample S, [0096]).
Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose the first light beam is totally internally reflected at the interface between the crystal and the sample at a first incident angle and the second light beam is totally internally reflected at the interface between the crystal and the sample at a second incident angle; and measuring the refractive index of the sample using the first light beam and measuring the refractive index of the sample using the second light beam includes comparing an absorption of the first light beam and second light beam relative to the first incident angle and the second incident angle.
Kodai teaches the first light beam (L1 at θ1) is totally internally reflected (discloses SPR on a metal thin film bonded to a prism, SPR inherently relies on TIR, page 11, lines 26-33) at the interface between the crystal and the sample at a first incident angle (θ1, page 11, lines 26-33) and the second light beam (L1 at θ2) is totally internally reflected (discloses SPR on a metal thin film bonded to a prism, SPR inherently relies on TIR, page 11, lines 26-33) at the interface between the crystal and the sample at a second incident angle (θ2, page 11, lines 26-33); and
measuring the refractive index of the sample using the first light beam (L21) and measuring the refractive index of the sample using the second light beam (L22, discloses using the first spectral spectrum L21 to measure refractive index and then using the refractive index to adjust the measurement of L22, page 8, lines 34-39) includes comparing an absorption of the first light beam and second light beam (discloses the control unit compares intensities of signals to determine refractive index, inherently comparing absorption or transmission between two beams, page 10, lines 25-30, and page 11, lines 54-59) relative to the first incident angle (θ1) and the second incident angle(θ2, page 11, lines 26-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the comparison method of Kodai to Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion to improve measurement sensitivity and accuracy (page 1, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 27, Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose wherein measuring the refractive index of the sample using the first light beam includes: altering a first incident angle of the first light beam at the interface, and comparing an absorption of the first light beam and the second light beam relative to the first incident angle and a second incident angle of the second light beam.
Kodai teaches wherein measuring the refractive index of the sample using the first light beam (L21, page 8, lines 34-39) includes:
altering a first incident angle of the first light beam at the interface (discloses irradiation at multiple angles θ1-θ7, altering the incident angle of L1, the control unit 40 select which incident angle to use for measurement, page 11, lines 26-33), and
comparing an absorption of the first light beam and the second light beam(discloses the control unit compares intensities of signals to determine refractive index, inherently comparing absorption or transmission between two beams, page 10, lines 25-30, and page 11, lines 54-59) relative to the first incident angle (θ1) and a second incident angle of the second light beam(θ2, page 11, lines 26-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the comparison method of Kodai to Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion to improve measurement sensitivity and accuracy (page 1, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 28, Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion fail to disclose wherein the at least one detector is configured to measure the refractive index of the sample by: altering a first incident angle of the first light beam at the interface: and comparing an absorption of the first light beam and the second light beam relative to the first incident angle and a second incident angle of the second light beam.
Kodai teaches wherein the at least one detector (27/29) is configured to measure the refractive index of the sample (discloses the detector output is used by control unit 40 to determine refractive index, page 8, lines 19-23) includes:
altering a first incident angle of the first light beam at the interface (discloses irradiation at multiple angles θ1-θ7, altering the incident angle of L1, the control unit 40 select which incident angle to use for measurement, page 11, lines 26-33), and
comparing an absorption of the first light beam and the second light beam(discloses the control unit compares intensities of signals to determine refractive index, inherently comparing absorption or transmission between two beams, page 10, lines 25-30, and page 11, lines 54-59) relative to the first incident angle (θ1) and a second incident angle of the second light beam (θ2, page 11, lines 26-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the comparison method of Kodai to Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion to improve measurement sensitivity and accuracy (page 1, lines 57-59).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (US Pub 2022/0065697 A1)(hereinafter, “Murayama”) in view of Verschuren et al. (US Pub 2011/0188030 A1)(hereinafter, “Verschuren”), further in view of Chambion et al. (“Curved sensors for compact high-resolution wide field designs: prototype demonstration and optical characterization”, 2018)(hereinafter, “Chambion”), further in view of Liddiard (US Pub 2009/0121137 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Murayama fails to disclose wherein the curved linear array comprises a plurality of thermal detectors positioned along an arc of a circle forming a curved surface.
Chambion teaches the curved linear array (discloses CMOS sensor, section “introduction”) along an arc of a circle forming a curved surface (discloses curved surface, section “curved sensors: improved aberration correction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a curved linear array of Chambion to Verschuren in view of Murayama to enhance accuracy in evanescent field based critical angle detection.
Liddiard teaches a plurality of thermal detectors (discloses microbolometers, [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a plurality of thermal detectors of Liddiard to Murayama in view of Verschuren, further in view of Chambion to improve thermal/temperature sensitivity and measurement accuracy.
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights