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 filed 5/7/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the prior art rejection of claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14 in view of 2016/0011058 to Kiep et al. (Kiep) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Office action states at pages 3-4:
Regarding the limitation “determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test”, this language has a scope that includes determining a temperature of the component-under-test using any difference between the curve data for the first current density and the curve data for the second current density, without more. For example, merely subtracting a value of a datapoint of the curve data for the second current density from a value of a datapoint of the curve data for the first current density, and then using only the resulting difference without more to determine a temperature of the component-under-test would fall within the scope of the “determine” limitation.
(emphasis in original)
The point being made here is that the “determine” language is so broadly recited that it encompasses deducing the temperature directly from the curve difference without more, i.e., without any further analysis or processing being applied to the curve difference. Applicant argues at page 9:
After obtaining curves in accord with the claimed features, Applicants submit that a person of ordinary skill would have ample guidance as to how to obtain temperature - using the specific examples PCA/regression, classification (including ML classification), and/or AI image processing - and/or other known methods of curve analysis/classification.
In response, the examiner notes, as acknowledged in the Office action, that the specification discloses use of PCA to first obtain principal components that best explain variably (differences) in the captured curve data, and subsequent application of a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components. The Office action therefore recognizes that the specification, while enabling for estimating a temperature of a component-under-test using at least this approach, does not enable the full scope of claim 1 as presently written because the specification lacks direction or guidance regarding how differences between curve data generally (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints), with nothing more, provides a basis for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test. All of the approaches noted by applicant in its argument (e.g., PCA/regression, classification (including ML classification), and/or AI image processing) represent further analysis/ processing that is applied to the curve difference in order to arrive at a temperature determination.
Applicant argues at pages 7-8 regarding the Office action’s characterization of the specification (see, e.g., OA, page 7, “Aside from the PCA and regression-based approach discussed above, no working examples of such a determination appear to be disclosed”):
Applicant notes (as noted by the Office Action in the passage reproduced above) that the specification provides the example of principal component analysis (PCA) to determine temperature based curve data difference. However, the Office Action inaccurately alleges that this is the only example of temperature determination provided. Applicant notes that at paragraph [0026] of the Application as filed alternative examples are provided including classification algorithms (including ML-based schemes) and AI-based image analysis. Thus, the specification provides multiple ways to determine temperature using the difference between curves obtained by varying an electrical parameter to hold current density constant at different levels.
At the outset, it appears that applicant may have intended to reference paragraph 29 of the specification which discusses machine learning (ML) and/or artificial intelligence (AI) techniques (such as classification algorithms, image generation, and/or other techniques). Paragraph 29 does not appear to disclose the use of such techniques/algorithms as stand-alone alternatives to the PCA and regression-based approach, as applicant is understood to argue. Rather, paragraph 29 discloses that “[t]hese outputs may supplant the PCA/regression outputs for increased output speed in monitoring usage (e.g., after initial algorithm training)” and/or “the ML and/or AI inputs are used by e.g., the logic 200 to obtain a head start with in the regression process, e.g., to speed the regression process with increased accuracy in the initial regression guess and/or reduce overall computation expense” (emphasis added). Further, paragraph 34 of the specification discloses “[t]he memory 620 may be used to store calibration data 622 and/or trained model data 624 that may be used to support PCA-based extraction of temperature data and/or ML/AI assisted extraction schemes” (emphasis added). At most, the classification algorithms and AI-based image analysis referenced in applicant’s argument are assistive/supplemental techniques that enhance the PCA and regression-based approach rather than provide an alternative to it. The examiner therefore maintains that aside from the PCA and regression-based approach (whether or not supplemented by ML and/or AI techniques), the specification provides no direction or guidance regarding how differences between curve data generally, with nothing more, provides a basis for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test, and that one skilled in the art could only make the entire scope of the claimed invention by resorting to undue experimentation.
Turning to applicant’s arguments pertaining to the teachings of 2016/0011058 to Kiep et al. (Kiep), the examiner notes that Kiep’s supply of the first known current IF1 causes a corresponding change in electrical parameter VF1 (see OA, pages 9-10). In other words, Kiep sets IF1 to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density, which correspondingly sets (varies) VF1 to its voltage value. Similarly, Kiep sets IF2 to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density, which correspondingly sets (varies) VF2 to its voltage value. The examiner maintains that Kiep’s process of setting IF1/IF2, and the corresponding changes in VF1/VF2 necessary to obtain these constant current values, fall within the scope of “vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density” and “vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density different from the first current density”. Under this interpretation of the claim language, the variation of the electrical parameter (voltage) need not be performed concomitantly with a duration of the current holding. Rather, the electrical parameter is set/varied as a necessarily condition to arrive at the set current.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Power et al., "An investigation of MOSFET statistical and temperature effects," ICMTS 92 Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures, San Diego, CA, USA, 1992, pp. 202-207 (Power) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Power has been withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s clarifying amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for estimating a temperature of a component-under-test by first applying PCA to curve data to obtain principal components that best explain the variably (differences) between the captured curve data and then applying a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components, does not reasonably provide enablement for determining a temperature of the component-under-test using any difference between the curve data for the first current density and the curve data for the second current density, without more. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1 recites:
A device including:
a component-under-test;
temperature circuitry including:
supply circuitry configured to:
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density; and
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density different from the first current density; and
processing circuitry configured to:
capture curve data for the electrical parameter levels used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities; and
determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test.
Regarding the limitation “determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test”, this language has a scope that includes determining a temperature of the component-under-test using any difference between the curve data for the first current density and the curve data for the second current density, without more. For example, merely subtracting a value of a datapoint of the curve data for the second current density from a value of a datapoint of the curve data for the first current density, and then using only the resulting difference without more to determine a temperature of the component-under-test would fall within the scope of the “determine” limitation.
The specification teaches at paragraph 25, however:
The processing circuitry 130 may implement various processing schemes to extract temperature data from the captured curve data. For example, a principal components analysis (PCA) may be used to determine temperature dependent components of the captured curve data to obtain a temperature level (e.g., based on calibration data for the temperature analysis device). For example, PCA may be performed on the temperature dependent curve data (e.g., to reduce the multicollinearity (e.g., the linear dependence on multiple different variables) so that the temperature dependent contribution of the captured curve data can be isolated (at least in part) from other contributions from other variables (e.g., via dimensionality reduction). A regression is performed on the PCA output, to map the temperature dependent contribution of the captured curve data to temperature (e.g., the regression inverts the temperature dependent contribution of the captured curve data, such that this data serves the independent variable in function that has temperature as a dependent variable).
(emphasis added)
Further, with reference to the subject matter of provisional application 63/522,844 which is incorporated into present specification by reference, the paper entitled “Accurate Temperature Measurement of Active Area for Wide-Bandgap Power Semiconductors” included in the provisional application discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification therefore discloses use of PCA to first obtain principal components that best explain variably (differences) in the captured curve data, and subsequent application of a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components. The scope of claim 1 appears to be considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure because the language “based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities” encompasses the use of any difference between the curve data (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints, as discussed above), with nothing more, as a basis for determining a temperature of the component-under-test.
The question of whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation is now considered in light of so-called Wands factors. See MPEP 2164.01(a). The nature of the invention is drawn to temperature analysis of electrical components. Although levels of ordinary skill and predictability in electrical component thermal modeling and temperature prediction based on electrical parameter levels is generally high, the scope of claim 1 is considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure because the claim encompasses the use of any difference between the curve data (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints, as discussed above), with nothing more, as a basis for determining a temperature of the component-under-test. At the time of the application was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of various techniques for estimating/inferring electrical component temperatures, such as FET channel/junction temperatures, using one or more temperature-sensitive electrical parameters (TSEPS) such as on-state resistance, drain to source current gradient, gate threshold voltage, drain to source voltage gradient, gate leakage current and the like. Although the present specification provides direction and guidance as to how a temperature of a component-under-test may be estimated by first applying PCA to curve data to obtain principal components that best explain the variably (differences) between the captured curve data and then applying a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components, the specification is not understood to provide any direction or guidance regarding how differences between curve data generally (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints, as discussed above), with nothing more, provides a basis for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test. Aside from the PCA and regression-based approach discussed above, no working examples of such a determination appear to be disclosed. Weighing the above-identified factors, particularly the breadth of the claim with respect to the disclosure and the amount of direction and guidance provided, the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art could only make the entire scope of the claimed invention by resorting to undue experimentation. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. Because none of dependent claims 2-9 appear to address these deficiencies, claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, based on recitations that are analogous to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. Because none of dependent claims 11-14 and dependent claims 16-20 appear to address the deficiencies of claims 10 and 15, claims 11-14 and claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claims 10 and 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2016/0011058 to Kiep et al. (Kiep).
Regarding claim 1, Kiep discloses a device including:
a component-under-test (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; semiconductor die 100);
temperature circuitry including:
supply circuitry configured to:
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 200, measuring a first forward voltage drop (VF1) of the temperature sense diode 105 under a first test condition, with the first test condition involving driving a first known current IF1 through the temperature sense diode 105; Kiep’s supply of the first known current IF1 causes a corresponding change in electrical parameter VF1; Kiep necessarily includes supply circuitry that supplies the first known current IF1 and causes the corresponding change in electrical parameter VF1); and
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density different from the first current density (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 210, measuring a second forward voltage drop (VF2) of the diode 105 under a second test condition, with the second test condition involving driving a second known current IF2 different than IF1 through the diode 105; Kiep’s supply of the second known current IF2 causes a corresponding change in electrical parameter VF2; Kiep necessarily includes supply circuitry that supplies the second known current IF2 and causes the corresponding change in electrical parameter VF2); and
processing circuitry configured to:
capture curve data for the electrical parameter levels used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 38-43, see paragraph 43 in particular, integrated circuit 500 shown in FIG. 7 can be adapted for use with any of the diode-based temperature sensor embodiments described herein; for example with regard to the single temperature sense diode embodiment of Fig. 1, the integrated circuit 500 can include a switch or multiplexer (not shown in FIG. 7 for ease of illustration) for selecting the first current source 504 to drive test current IF1 through the single diode 105 and then later selecting the second current source 506 to drive test current IF2 through the diode 105; the analysis unit 502 is at least partly digital in nature and can include memory 508 for storing the resulting forward voltage measurements VF1, VF; for example, the integrated circuit 502 can include ADC (analog-to-digital converter) circuitry 510 for converting analog forward voltage measurements to corresponding digital representations for storage in the memory 508; analysis unit 502 estimates the temperature of the discrete semiconductor device based on the difference between the forward voltage drop measurements stored in the memory 508 e.g. based on equation (1); in the case of the single temperature sense diode embodiment of Fig. 1, the semiconductor die 100 needs to only have one force terminal and one sense terminal for measuring the forward voltage drops VF1, VF2; Kiep therefore discloses processing circuitry to capture curve data for the forward voltage levels (i.e., VF1, VF2) used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities corresponding to first and second known currents IF1, IF2, respectively); and
determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 220, temperature of the discrete semiconductor device 102 is then estimated based on ΔVF=(VF1−VF2), i.e., the difference between the first and second forward voltage drop measurements; also see paragraphs 24-28, equation 1, with ΔVF being a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities corresponding to first and second known currents IF1, IF2).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
331
196
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kiep, Figs. 1-21
Regarding claim 2, Kiep discloses where the processing circuitry is configured to determine the temperature by isolating the curve difference (see Kiep as applied to claim 1, Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 220, temperature of the discrete semiconductor device 102 is then estimated based on ΔVF=(VF1−VF2), i.e., the difference between the first and second forward voltage drop measurements; also see paragraphs 24-28, equation 1, with ΔVF being a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities corresponding to first and second known currents IF1, IF2; Kiep’s calculation of ΔVF by analysis unit 502 constitutes isolating the curve difference).
Regarding claim 5, Kiep discloses where the selected first and second current densities correspond to different operational current regions of the component-under-test (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 29, note in Fig. 3 that first and second known currents IF1, IF2 (and therefore corresponding first and second current densities) of diode 105 of semiconductor die 100 correspond to different operational current regions, e.g., IF1, VF1 are relatively large compared to IF2, VF2 which are shown as close to the threshold voltage VT of the diode 105 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kiep discloses where the different operational current regions include: a below threshold operational region; an above threshold operational region; and/or an at or near threshold operational region (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 29, note in Fig. 3 that first and second known currents IF1, IF2 (and therefore corresponding first and second current densities) of diode 105 of semiconductor die 100 correspond to different operational current regions, e.g., IF1, VF1 are relatively large compared to IF2, VF2 which are shown as close to the threshold voltage VT of the diode 105 in Fig. 3; the region of IF1, VF1 is therefore an above threshold operational region and the region of IF2, VF2 is an at or near threshold operational region).
Regarding claim 7, Kiep discloses where the different operational current regions include temperature regions, each temperature region characterized by a different relationship between current level and the electrical parameter (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 29, note in Fig. 3 that first and second known currents IF1, IF2 (and therefore corresponding first and second current densities) of diode 105 of semiconductor die 100 correspond to different operational current regions, e.g., IF1, VF1 are relatively large compared to IF2, VF2 which are shown as close to the threshold voltage VT of the diode 105 in Fig. 3; the region of IF1, VF1 is therefore an above threshold operational region and the region of IF2, VF2 is an at or near threshold operational region; the examiner notes that the diode 105 has a defined forward voltage drop to junction temperature relationship; accordingly the region of IF1, VF1 and the region of IF2, VF2 constitute temperature regions; further, the examiner notes that a diode characteristic is non-linear even over the region between VF1-VF2 shown in Fig. 3; accordingly each temperature region in Fig. 3 will characterized by a different relationship between current level and the forward voltage VF in Fig. 3; in other words, the relationship between IF/VF at the region of IF1, VF1 will be different than the relationship between IF/VF at the region of IF2, VF2).
Regarding claim 8, Kiep discloses where the supply circuitry includes a first current source circuit biased at a first level to supply the selected first current density and a second current source circuit biased at a second level to supply the selected second current density (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 38-43, note first current source 504 for generating a first current IF1 and a second current source 506 for generating a second current IF2).
Claim 10 recites a method including:
supplying current to a component-under-test at multiple different current densities by varying an electrical parameter to hold the current at each of the multiple different current densities; and
at each of the multiple different current densities, capturing curve data while holding the current at that one of the multiple different current densities; and
determining, based at least in part on a curve difference among the curve data for the multiple different current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Kiep for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites determining the temperature includes isolating the curve difference and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Kiep for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 14 recites where the multiple different current densities correspond to different operational current regions of the component-under-test and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Kiep for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 5.
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 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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0011058 to Kiep et al. (Kiep).
Regarding claim 9, Kiep discloses where:
the first current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a switch (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 38-43; see paragraph 43 in particular, with regard to the single temperature sense diode embodiment of Fig. 1, the integrated circuit 500 can include a switch or multiplexer (not shown in Fig. 7 for ease of illustration) for selecting the first current source 504 to drive test current 11 through the single diode 105 and then later selecting the second current source 506 to drive test current 12 through the diode 105); and
the second current source is coupled to the component-under-test via the switch, the switch configured to selectively couple the first and/or second current sources to the component-under-test (see Kiep as applied above, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraph 43, the integrated circuit 500 can include a switch or multiplexer (not shown in Fig. 7 for ease of illustration) for selecting the first current source 504 to drive test current 11 through the single diode 105 and then later selecting the second current source 506 to drive test current 12 through the diode 105).
Kiep is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing the first current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a first shunt resistor and a switch, and the second current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a second shunt resistor and the switch. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of a shunt resistor for measuring current to provide feedback to a current source to ensure that current is suitably controlled was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify Kiep such that the first current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a first shunt resistor and the switch. In this way, feedback to the first current source can be provided so that the current can be suitably controlled.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
1 Figs. 1-2 are copied from corresponding US 10,132,696 to Kiep et al. due to better image quality, but are otherwise identical to those of Kiep.
Prosecution Insights