Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-17 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Brookhyser et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0209707), herein after referred to as Brookhyser.
Regarding independent claim 1, Brookhyser discloses a multi-axis beam positioner (figure 2) operative to deflect a beam path (114) along which laser light along multiple axes (Y-axis + X-axis) (paragraph [0007]), the beam positioner comprising:
a first acousto-optic (AO) deflector (AOD) (200) and a second AOD (202) arranged optically in series with each other (Figure 2 beam of laser light propagates along axis 114 which is through both 200 and 202, in series, as described in paragraph [0007].), wherein the first AOD (200) is arranged and configured to deflect the beam path along a first axis (X-axis 204) of the multi-axis beam positioner ([0007]),
wherein the second AOD (202) is arranged and configured to deflect the beam path along a second axis (Y-axis 206) of the multi-axis beam positioner ([0007]),
wherein each of the first AOD (200) and the second AOD (202) has an AO cell (201) and a transducer (203) attached to the AO cell ([0007]),
wherein the AO cell (201) of the first AOD (200) is formed of the same material as the AO cell (201) of the second AOD (200) (Paragraph [0020] describes both cells as crystalline quartz), and
wherein one of the first AOD (200) and the second AOD is provided in parallel operative state in which a plane of polarization laser light (114) incident thereupon is at least substantially parallel to a diffraction axis (X) thereof, and wherein the other of the first AOD and the second AOD (202) is provided in perpendicular (Y) operative state in which a plane of polarization of laser light (X output of 200 to 202) incident thereupon is at least substantially perpendicular to a diffraction axis (Y) thereof (The current application’s support, paragraph [0008], describes figures 1-2 incident beam path 114 of the laser light as a plane of deflection. Identically, the prior art discloses the incident beam path 114 in figure 2 operating in an identical manner to first AOD 200 and second AOD 202 such that first AOD 200 is arranged to output the diffraction x axis to 202 which is arranged to output diffraction Y axis, [0007].).
Regarding claim 4, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1, wherein the first AOD and the second AOD each include an AO cell formed of crystalline germanium ([0021]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Lacaze et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0263330), herein after referred to as Lacaze.
Regarding claim 2, Brookhyser discloses the positioner of claim 1 wherein the first AOD and the second AOD are longitudinal-mode AODs, and
wherein no retarder is present between the first AOD and the second AOD (Figure 3 depicts a half-wave plate 302, however, the embodiment of figure 2 does not include a retarder therebetween 200 and 202.).
Brokhyser does not specifically disclose wherein the first AOD and the second AOD are longitudinal-mode AODs.
Lacaze discloses wherein the first AOD (figure 3 300) and the second AOD (301) are longitudinal-mode AODs (Paragraph [0034] describes the AODs to create longitudinal standing waves specific that they are parallel and linear in order to bend a single beam at different angles in a plane.), and
wherein no retarder is present between the first AOD and the second AOD (Figure 3 does not depict or discuss a retarder therebetween.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brokhyser’s AODs with the known technique of operating in a longitudinal-mode yielding the predictable results of generating parallel and linear waves at different angles in a plane from a single beam as disclosed by Lacaze (paragraph [0034]).
5. Claim(s) 3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Young (US Patent 5,268,911).
Regarding claim 3, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1, wherein
the AO cell (201) of the first AOD (200) is formed of the same material ([0020]) as the AO cell (201) of the second AOD (202),
a diffraction axis (Figure 1 116) of the first AOD (200) is at least substantially [ ] to a first crystal axis of the material (Paragraphs [0018] and [0020] describes the material of the AOD cell to be crystalline quartz) of which the AO cell (201) of the first AOD (200) is formed (Figure 1 and paragraph [0006] describes the propagating direction of the acoustic wave 110 through the AO medium 102 (crystalline quartz [0018] and [0020]) changes the refractive index within the medium 102. Said change functions to diffract a beam of laser light along axis 116.), and
a diffraction axis (206) of the second AOD (202) is at least substantially perpendicular to the diffraction axis (116) of the first AOD (201).
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose the diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis and the diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially perpendicular to the first crystal axis.
Young describes the diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis (X-cut crystal quartz acousto-optical modulator wherein the acoustic waves propagate in the x direction into the bulk/substantially in the x-cut/x-axis of the crystal quartz as described in figure 1 and column 2 lines 43-58.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s AODs with crystalline quartz cell material 201 with the known technique of x-cut such that propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the x-direction (such as Brookhyser’s first AOD 200) are considered to be substantially/in bulk in parallel with the x-cut cell and propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the Y-direction (such as Brookhyser’s second AOD 202) are considered to be substantially/in bulk perpendicular with the x-cut cell yielding the predictable results of improving properties such as: acoustic attenuation, thermal conductivity, q, loss modulation efficiency, drive power efficiency, and angular sensitivity as disclosed by Young (column 1 line 50 to column 2 line 16).
Regarding claim 5, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 4, wherein a diffraction axis (Figures 1 and 2 116 x-axis [0007]) of the first AOD (200) is at least substantially [ ] to the [111] crystal axis of the AO cell (201) of the first AOD (200).
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose wherein a diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a [111] crystal axis of the AO cell of the first AOD.
Young describes the diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis (X-cut crystal quartz acousto-optical modulator wherein the acoustic waves propagate in the x direction into the bulk/substantially in the x-cut/x-axis of the crystal quartz as described in figure 1 and column 2 lines 43-58.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s AODs with crystalline quartz cell material 201 with the known technique of x-cut such that propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the x-direction (such as Brookhyser’s first AOD 200) are considered to be substantially/in bulk in parallel with the x-cut cell and propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the Y-direction (such as Brookhyser’s second AOD 202) are considered to be substantially/in bulk perpendicular with the x-cut cell yielding the predictable results of improving properties such as: acoustic attenuation, thermal conductivity, q, loss modulation efficiency, drive power efficiency, and angular sensitivity as disclosed by Young (column 1 line 50 to column 2 line 16).
Regarding claim 7, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1,
the AO cell (201) of the first AOD (200) is formed of the same material ([0020]) as the AO cell (201) of the second AOD (202),
a diffraction axis (Figure 1 116) of the first AOD (200) is at least substantially [ ] to a first crystal axis of the material (Paragraphs [0018] and [0020] describes the material of the AOD cell to be crystalline quartz) of which the AO cell (201) of the first AOD (200) is formed (Figure 1 and paragraph [0006] describes the propagating direction of the acoustic wave 110 through the AO medium 102 (crystalline quartz [0018] and [0020]) changes the refractive index within the medium 102. Said change functions to diffract a beam of laser light along axis 116.), and
a diffraction axis (206) of the second AOD (202) is at least substantially perpendicular to the diffraction axis (116) of the first AOD (201).
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose wherein a diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially perpendicular to the [111] crystal axis of the AO cell of the first AOD, and a diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially perpendicular toa second crystal axis the material of which the AO cell of the second AOD is formed.
Young describes the diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis (X-cut crystal quartz acousto-optical modulator wherein the acoustic waves propagate in the x direction into the bulk/substantially in the x-cut/x-axis of the crystal quartz as described in figure 1 and column 2 lines 43-58.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s AODs with crystalline quartz cell material 201 with the known technique of x-cut such that propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the x-direction (such as Brookhyser’s first AOD 200) are considered to be substantially/in bulk in parallel with the x-cut cell and propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the Y-direction (such as Brookhyser’s second AOD 202) are considered to be substantially/in bulk perpendicular with the x-cut (in both the x and z axis) cell yielding the predictable results of improving properties such as: acoustic attenuation, thermal conductivity, q, loss modulation efficiency, drive power efficiency, and angular sensitivity as disclosed by Young (column 1 line 50 to column 2 line 16).
6. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Young and further in view of Seino et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0186912), herein after referred to as Seino.
Regarding claim 6, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 5, wherein a diffraction axis (Figures 1 and 2 116 x-axis [0007]) of the second AOD (202) is at least substantially [ ] to a [111] crystal axis of the AO cell (201) of the second AOD (200).
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose wherein a diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially perpendicular to the [111] crystal axis of the AO cell of the first AOD.
Young describes the diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis (X-cut crystal quartz acousto-optical modulator wherein the acoustic waves propagate in the x direction into the bulk/substantially in the x-cut/x-axis of the crystal quartz as described in figure 1 and column 2 lines 43-58.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s AODs with crystalline quartz cell material 201 with the known technique of x-cut such that propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the x-direction (such as Brookhyser’s first AOD 200) are considered to be substantially/in bulk in parallel with the x-cut cell and propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the Y-direction (such as Brookhyser’s second AOD 202) are considered to be substantially/in bulk perpendicular with the x-cut cell yielding the predictable results of improving properties such as: acoustic attenuation, thermal conductivity, q, loss modulation efficiency, drive power efficiency, and angular sensitivity as disclosed by Young (column 1 line 50 to column 2 line 16).
Brookhyser and Young do not specifically disclose the diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially perpendicular to a first crystal axis.
Seino discloses wherein Z-cut or X-cut is preferable for crystal orientation in order to produce an electro-optical effect efficiently ([0038]) for an acousto-optic modulator using an acousto-optic effect ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser-Young’s X-cut wherein the diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis with the known technique of z-cut (enabling the diffraction axis of the first AOD to be at least substantially perpendicular to the first crystal axis) yielding the predictable results of producing an electro-optical effect efficiently for an acousto-optic modulator as disclosed by Seino ([0005]).
7. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Young and further in view of Pannell (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0296303).
Regarding claim 8, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1, wherein a diffraction axis (Figure 1 116) of the second AOD (202) is at least substantially [ ] to a [100] crystal axis of the material (Paragraphs [0018] and [0020] describes the material of the AOD cell to be crystalline quartz) of which the AO cell (201) of the second AOD (202) is formed (Figure 1 and paragraph [0006] describes the propagating direction of the acoustic wave 110 through the AO medium 102 (crystalline quartz [0018] and [0020]) changes the refractive index within the medium 102. Said change functions to diffract a beam of laser light along axis 116.).
Young describes the diffraction axis of the first AOD is at least substantially parallel to a first crystal axis (X-cut crystal quartz acousto-optical modulator wherein the acoustic waves propagate in the x direction into the bulk/substantially in the x-cut/x-axis of the crystal quartz as described in figure 1 and column 2 lines 43-58.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s AODs with crystalline quartz cell material 201 with the known technique of x-cut such that propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the x-direction (such as Brookhyser’s first AOD 200) are considered to be substantially/in bulk in parallel with the x-cut cell and propagating waves and diffraction axis in an AOD in the Y-direction (such as Brookhyser’s second AOD 202) are considered to be substantially/in bulk perpendicular with the x-cut cell yielding the predictable results of improving properties such as: acoustic attenuation, thermal conductivity, q, loss modulation efficiency, drive power efficiency, and angular sensitivity as disclosed by Young (column 1 line 50 to column 2 line 16).
Brookhyser and Young do not specifically disclose the diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially parallel to the [100] crystal axis of the AO cell of the second AOD.
Pannell discloses y-cut to often be used for longitudinal acoustic wave generation in AO has the c-axis inclined at 36 degrees to the plane of the crystal plate (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser-Young’s X-cut wherein the diffraction axis of the second AOD is at least substantially perpendicular to the [100] first crystal axis of the AO cell of the second AOD with the known technique of Y-cut (enabling the diffraction axis of the second AOD to be at least substantially parallel to the [100] crystal axis of the AO cell of the second AOD) yielding the predictable results of an often used cut for longitudinal acoustic wave generation as disclosed by Pannell ([0009]).
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Liebenberg et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0350181), herein after referred to as Liebenberg.
Regarding claim 9, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1.
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose further comprising a heat exchange mechanism thermally coupled to the second AOD, wherein the heat exchange mechanism is operative to removing heat from the second AOD.
Liebenberg discloses a heat exchange mechanism thermally coupled to an AOD, wherein the heat exchange mechanism is operative to removing heat from the AOD (Figure 5 550a +550b [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s second AOD 202 with the known technique of a heat exchange mechanism thermally coupled to the AOD, wherein the heat exchange mechanism is operative to removing heat from the AOD yielding the predictable results of increasing the lifetime of the device as disclosed by Liebenberg ([0045]).
9. Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Liebenberg in view of Reven et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0066240), herein after referred to as Reven.
Regarding claim 10, Brookhyser-Liebenberg discloses the beam positioner of claim 9.
Neither Brookhyser or Liebenberg disclose wherein the heat exchange mechanism is operative to cool the AO cell of the second AOD to a temperature below 250 K.
Reven discloses known refractive index changes of Germanium (a known AO cell material) at various temperatures including a refractive index of 3.9 at a temperature of 50k with a wavelength of 20 micrometers (Figure 4 and paragraphs [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser-Liebenberg’s heat exchange mechanism to cool the AO cell with the known technique of cooling the AO cell to 50K yielding the predictable results of acquiring a refractive index of 3.9 as disclosed by Reven (figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Reven discloses the beam positioner of claim 10, wherein the temperature is below 200 K (50K figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Reven disclose the beam positioner of claim 10, wherein the temperature is above 10 K (50K figure 4).
10. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Yamashita et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0089339), herein after referred to as Yamashita.
Regarding claim 13, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1.
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose further comprising a dehumidifier operative to prevent ambient moisture from condensing on an optical surface of at least one selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD.
Yamashita discloses comprising a dehumidifier operative (figure 1 68 and/or 66+67) to prevent ambient moisture from condensing on an optical surface (paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0076], [0089]) of at least one selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD (63 [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable AOD with the known technique of a dehumidifier operative to prevent ambient moisture from condensing on an optical surface of at least one selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD yielding the predictable results of controlling humidity as disclosed by Yamashita ([0063]).
11. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Young et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0086447), herein after referred to as Young’447.
Regarding claim 14, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1.
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose wherein an interaction length of the second AOD is the same as an interaction length of the first AOD.
Young’447 discloses wherein an interaction length of the second AOD (12) is the same as an interaction length of the first AOD (11) (figure 1 10 paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s first and second AOD with the known technique of wherein an interaction length of the second AOD is the same as an interaction length of the first AOD yielding the predictable results of achieves a loss modulation efficiency that is sufficiently high to prevent the laser cavity from lasing under high gain and intense pumping conditions as disclosed by Young’447 ([0026]).
Regarding claim 15, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1.
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose wherein an interaction length of the second AOD is different from an interaction length of the first AOD.
Young’447 discloses wherein an interaction length of the second AOD (12) is different from an interaction length of the first AOD (11) (figure 1 10 and figure 4 paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s first and second AOD with the known technique of wherein an interaction length of the second AOD is different than an interaction length of the first AOD yielding the predictable results of an alternative means of also achieving a loss modulation efficiency that is sufficiently high to prevent the laser cavity from lasing under high gain and intense pumping conditions as disclosed by Young’447 ([0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Brookhyser discloses the beam positioner of claim 1.
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose wherein the AO cell of the first AOD is optically contacted to the AO cell of the second AOD such that optically contacted surfaces of the AO cells of the first and second AODs are spaced apart by a distance that is equal to or less than a wavelength of light that is diffractable by the first and second AODs.
Young’447 discloses wherein the AO cell of the first AOD is optically contacted to the AO cell of the second AOD such that optically contacted surfaces of the AO cells of the first and second AODs are spaced apart by a distance that is equal to or less than a wavelength of light that is diffractable by the first and second AODs (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser with the known technique of wherein the AO cell of the first AOD is optically contacted to the AO cell of the second AOD such that optically contacted surfaces of the AO cells of the first and second AODs are spaced apart by a distance that is equal to or less than a wavelength of light that is diffractable by the first and second AODs. yielding the predictable results of effectively reducing the beam travel distance as disclosed by Young’447 ([0025]).
12. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser in view of Liebenberg and in view of Shah (US Patent 5,002,395).
Regarding independent claim 17, Brookhyser discloses a multi-axis beam positioner (figure 2) comprising:
a first acousto-optic (AO) deflector (AOD) (200) and a second AOD (202) arranged optically in series with each other (Figure 2 beam of laser light propagates along axis 114 which is through both 200 and 202, in series, as described in paragraph [0007].),
[ ],
wherein the first AOD (200) is arranged and configured to deflect the beam path along a first axis (X-axis 204) of the multi-axis beam positioner ([0007]),
wherein the second AOD (202) is arranged and configured to deflect the beam path along a second axis (Y-axis 206) of the multi-axis beam positioner ([0007]),
wherein each of the first AOD (200) and the second AOD (202) has an AO cell (201) and a transducer (203) attached to the AO cell ([0007]),
wherein the AO cell of the second AOD is formed of crystalline germanium ([0021]),
wherein the second AOD (202) is provided perpendicular operative state (Y) in which a plane (X) of polarization of a laser (114) light incident upon (via output of 200) the second AOD (202) is at least substantially perpendicular to a diffraction axis (Y) of the second AOD (202) (The current application’s support, paragraph [0008], describes figures 1-2 incident beam path 114 of the laser light as a plane of deflection. Identically, the prior art discloses the incident beam path 114 in figure 2 operating in an identical manner to first AOD 200 and second AOD 202 such that first AOD 200 is arranged to output the diffraction x axis to 202 which is arranged to output diffraction Y axis, [0007].), and
wherein [ ].
Brookhyser does not specifically disclose a heat exchanger coupled to the second AOD and wherein the at least one heat exchanger is configured to maintain the AO cell of the second OAD at a temperature that is less than a temperature of the AO cell of the first AOD.
Liebenberg discloses a heat exchange mechanism thermally coupled to an AOD, wherein the heat exchange mechanism is operative to removing heat from the AOD (Figure 5 550a +550b [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser’s second AOD 202 with the known technique of a heat exchange mechanism thermally coupled to the AOD, wherein the heat exchange mechanism is operative to removing heat from the AOD yielding the predictable results of increasing the lifetime of the device as disclosed by Liebenberg ([0045]).
Shah discloses complementary deflection action is achieved by Bragg cells having temperature difference between two Bragg cells that have the same material (column 2 lines 39-55).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Brookhyser-Liebenberg’s heat exchange mechanism coupled with the second AOD with the known technique of maintaining the AO cell of the second OAD at a temperature that is less than a temperature of the AO cell of the first AOD yielding the predictable results of achieving complementary deflection between the two cells as disclosed by Shah (column 2 lines 39-55).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues newly amended claim language. Please note that the AODs 200 and 202 of the prior art are not only physically oriented perpendicular to one another but is specifically described to deflect light along an X-axis (200) and thereafter to deflect light along a Y-axis (via 202) as described in paragraph [0007]. This discloser rejects the newly amended subject matter. This action is final necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
14. 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 E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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 E LEIBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights