DETAILED ACTION
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The Amendments and Applicant Arguments submitted on 07/28/2026 have been received and its contents have been carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13 and 15-16, as currently amended, are presented for examination. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14 and 17-20, as previously submitted, are now presented again for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a non-metallic portion engaging at least one of the plurality of pores of the plurality of etched engagement features to couple the non-metallic portion to the clad sidewall portion.” should be amended to “a non-metallic portion engaging at least one of the plurality of pores [[of]]or the plurality of etched engagement features to couple the non-metallic portion to the clad sidewall portion.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
For purposes of examination “a continuous magnesium oxide layer” is interpreted as a substantially uninterrupted layer comprising magnesium oxide extending along the intermetallic interface, as distinguished from isolated magnesium enriched clusters or discrete oxide fragments.
Paragraph 0082 in applicant’s specification states “a continuous magnesium oxide layer can be formed in the intermetallic compound 1006 between the first and second materials 1002, 1004.” The specification however does not identify a magnesium source, a required magnesium concentration in either starting material, an oxygen source or oxygen concentration, a mechanism by which magnesium oxide forms, or processing conditions that produce a continuous magnesium oxide layer. Paragraphs 0072-0080 describe roll bonding and heat treatment generally. However, those paragraphs do not provide numerical bonding temperatures, pressures, reduction ratios, processing times, oxygen partial pressures, or other conditions correlated with formation of a continuous magnesium oxide layer. Paragraph 0077 instead teaches that preheating may be performed in an inert environment sealed from air and monitored for oxygen in order to prevent oxygen enrichment of the titanium. Paragraph 0079 discloses how qualitative variations in heat treatment temperature and duration affect the thickness and continuity of the overall intermetallic compound but does not state that any disclosed combination produces a continuous magnesium oxide layer. The figures likewise do not separately identify a continuous magnesium oxide layer.
A good reference for understanding the state of the art is Liu et al., “Atomic Diffusion Mechanism and Interface Nanomechanics in the AI/Ti Composite Structures,” Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 230, Article 109507, Feb 1, 2022 (hereinafter Liu). Liu demonstrates that providing a “continuous magnesium oxide layer” would not naturally or easily occur from the bonding of titanium with aluminum. Liu discloses AA6063 containing approximately 0.5563 wt % magnesium and Ti-6Al-4V. Liu polished and acid-pickled the surfaces, hot-compressed the materials at 550 degree Celsius with a 40% reduction, and annealed the composite for 24 hours at temperatures from 500 degree Celsius to 650 degree Celsius. See Liu, p. 2 and Figure 2. Liu observed magnesium enriched clusters at the Al/TiAl3 interface and explained that the magnesium enrichment was principally caused by residual magnesium containing oxides. See Liu, p. 9. Liu further explains that compression crushed and repeatedly broke the surface oxide film and that fine or nanoscale oxide fragments remained distributed at the completed interface together with sound bonding zones. See Liu, pp. 10-11 and Figure 14. Liu therefore demonstrates that formation of magnesium enriched clusters and discrete oxide fragments are a result of the formation of the intermetallic interface absent some unforeseen processing steps and experimentation. The nature of the claimed subject matter (i.e. “a continuous magnesium oxide layer”) involves interdependent diffusion, oxidation, oxide-film fracture, and intermetallic phase formation at a dissimilar metal interface. Liu demonstrates that these phenomena are sensitive to alloy composition, surface conditions, deformation and thermal factors and may produce materially different intermetallic interface compositions.
Applicants have not provided the requisite combinations of starting metal compositions, magnesium content percentages, surface preparation, native oxide conditions, oxygen exposure rates, bonding pressure and temperature and time of processes. Because the specification does not provide an operative starting window nor a relationship predicting which combinations will succeed, an undue amount of experimentation is required of a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to discover the conditions that would produce a continuous magnesium oxide layer at the intermetallic interface.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
For purposes of examination “wherein the intermetallic interface is free of discrete oxide particles” will be interpreted to mean an intermetallic interface contains no separately discernible particulate oxide phase. The limitation is not interpreted as excluding a continuous oxide layer, dissolved oxygen or every oxygen atom as applicant’s own disclosure provides that a continuous magnesium oxide layer may be present in paragraph 0082.
Paragraph 0083 states that the intermetallic interface “can be free from discrete oxide particles.” However, simply stating this conclusion does not in and of itself enable a person having skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to make it happen. Paragraph 0089 states only that a Ti64/7000 series aluminum composite formed by direct metal disposition can be “relatively free from oxides.” The specification does not disclose deposition conditions, atmospheric or oxygen limits, surface cleaning techniques, the elapsed time permitted between processes, or a method and sampling standard for determining that the entire intermetallic interface is free of discrete oxide particles.
Once again turning to Liu as an example of the art, Liu discloses that absence of such oxide particles does not predictably result from conventional preparation and bonding. Liu discloses polishing and acid pickling AA6063 and Ti-6Al-4V surfaces and subjected them to vacuum assisted hot compression and subsequent annealing. Nevertheless, Liu disclosed that native oxide film was broken and dispersed and that fine or nanoscale oxide fragments remained distributed at the completed interface together with sound bonding zones. See Liu, pp. 2, 10-11 and Figure 14.
Furthermore, Claim 5, being dependent upon Claim 1, does not require any specific interior metal but may be any metal. The relevant oxide chemistry and behavior of the oxide during joining varies with alloy composition, surface preparation, atmosphere conditions, joining processes, deformation and thermal factors. The absence of a disclosed process window or general relationship predicting elimination of discrete oxide particles would require a skilled artisan to screen combinations of these variables and then characterize multiple portions of the resulting interface to determine whether the negative limitation of “free of discrete oxide particles” has been satisfied. Due to these reasons and given the state of the art as evidenced in Liu, without direction or examples, the amount of experimentation required is beyond what a person of skill in the art would necessarily have knowledge of and therefore Claim 5 lacks enablement.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 now recites “wherein the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature comprise a plurality of pores of an oxide layer.” Claim 10 depends from Claim 8 where the first engagement feature is associated with the titanium portion and the second engagement feature is associated with the interior metal portion. However, nowhere in applicant’s disclosure does pores appear on an oxide layer as the first and second engagement features of the titanium portion or interior metal portion, respectively. The specification only supports pores being formed directly on the titanium and directly on the aluminum (i.e. the interior metal portion). Applicant’s paragraphs 0066-0069 disclose engagement features 732 on the exterior portion and 734 on the interior portion formed by machining and/or etching. But nowhere therein discloses an oxide layer with pores. Similarly, paragraphs 0092-0094 disclose a first material 1302 (e.g. titanium) that is directly etched to form pores 1308. Protective/anodized layer 1306 is provided to protect the second material (e.g. aluminum) during etching, but this material is subsequently removed. See Applicant’s paragraphs 0095-0096; Figures 13A-13E. Absent a disclosure of a first engagement feature and a second engagement feature comprising a plurality of pores of an oxide layer the amended Claim 10 lacks written description in the originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (WO 2020/001331).
In re Claim 16, Zhu discloses a housing for a portable electronic device, comprising: a clad sidewall portion at least partially defining an internal volume and an external surface of the portable electronic device (paragraphs 0009, 0022 and 0045 disclosing a housing having a frame particularly suitable for a mobile phone housing), the clad sidewall portion comprising: an outer portion comprising a first metal (paragraphs 0009, 0022-0023), the outer portion at least partially defining an engagement surface (See Figures 1-3); an inner portion comprising a second metal bonded to the first metal (frame has bonded outer and inner layers and outer layer defines the exterior and inner layer faces the interior; paragraphs 0009, 0022-0023), the inner portion at least partially defining the engagement surface (functional groove cuts through both the inner and outer layers causing the inner wall to be a part of the exposed surface of both layers, paragraphs 0046, 0108); wherein the engagement surface includes at least one of a plurality of pores or a plurality of etched engagement features (holes and/or grooves are formed on the inner surface of the functional groove, holes have an average aperture diameter of 10-60 nm, paragraph 0113); and a non-metallic portion engaging at least one of the plurality of pores or the plurality of etched engagement features to couple the non-metallic portion to the clad sidewall portion (nonconductive polymer is injected into the functional groove and anchored in the holes/grooves to improve bonding, paragraphs 0109, 0112-0113).
In re Claim 17, Zhu discloses wherein the non-metallic portion comprises a moldable material (e.g. polymer) at least partially disposed in at least one of the plurality of pores or the etched engagement features. Zhu, paragraphs 0109, 0112-0113.
In re Claim 18, Zhu discloses wherein the first metal comprises titanium. Zhu, paragraphs 0009, 0022-0023.
In re Claim 19, Zhu discloses wherein the second metal comprises aluminum. Zhu, paragraphs 0003-0010.
In re Claim 20, Zhu discloses wherein the non-metallic portion is coupled to the engagement surface via a mechanical surface interlocking structure. Zhu, paragraphs 0046, 0108; Steps S61-S62.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Publication 2009/0197116) in view of Liu et al., “Atomic Diffusion Mechanism and Interface Nanomechanics in the AI/Ti Composite Structures,” Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 230, Article 109507, Feb 1, 2022 (hereinafter Liu).
In re Claim 1, Cheng discloses a housing 10 for an electronic device, comprising: an exterior titanium portion 11 (Figure 3; paragraph 0010); an interior metal 12 joined to the exterior titanium portion, the interior metal comprising a material different than the exterior titanium portion (paragraph 0010). Cheng further discloses wherein the exterior titanium portion and the interior metal may be formed by pressing, rolling or explosive bonding. Cheng, paragraph 0015.
Cheng does not explicitly disclose an intermetallic interface having a thickness disposed between the interior metal and the exterior titanium portion and a gradient concentration of titanium and the interior metal.
However, Liu discloses an intermetallic interface (for example the interface as shown in SN550 Figure 4b) disposed between exterior titanium and an interior metal (Liu forms a TiAl3 containing intermetallic layer between titanium alloy and aluminum alloy. See pp. 4-5, §3.1; p. 7, §3.2; Figures 6b and 7b). Liu Figure 6a, 6b discloses “a thickness disposed between the interior metal and the exterior titanium portion” where Figure 6a discloses an average diffusion layer of approximately 2.86 µm for SN550. Figure 7b also shows interposed TiAl3 layer. Liu further discloses “a gradient concentration of titanium and the interior metal” as it discloses on page 4, §3.1 concentration gradients and transition zones for Al and Ti at the annealed interfaces. Figure 5c shows the Al/Ti composition profile along line B through the SN550 interface identified in Figure 4b.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to form a bonded titanium/aluminum housing material as disclosed in Cheng using Liu’s disclosed alloy pairing and hot compression/annealing treatment. The result provides Liu’s characteristic intermetallic interface between the exterior titanium portion and interior metal as otherwise disclosed in Cheng. Liu does suggest the use of Ti-6Al-4V and AA6063 which both fall within the titanium alloy and aluminum alloy envisioned by Cheng. Cheng, paragraphs 0010-0011. The use of Liu’s process provides improved bonding between dissimilar metal portions while controlling the intermetallic layer’s thickness. Liu, p. 12, §5.
In re Claims 2 and 3, Liu wherein the intermetallic interface has a thickness of less than 1 µm and less than 200 nm. Liu, p. 4, Figure 6a (disclosing an interface after compression of 0.18 µm).
In re Claim 6, Liu discloses wherein: the intermetallic interface comprises a continuous layer between the interior metal and the exterior titanium portion; and the intermetallic interface separates the interior metal from the exterior titanium portion. Liu, pp. 4 and 7, Figures 4 and 7 (Liu discloses annealed Al/Ti composite having a TiAl3 layer continuously disposed between the aluminum and titanium materials. Liu’s Figures 4 and 7 show the TiAl3 layer extending along the Al/Ti interface, and Liu explains that the TiAl3 layer exhibited compact bonding at 500-550 degrees Celsius and sound bonding at both the Al/ TiAl3 and Ti/TiAl3 interfaces. The intervening continuous TiAl3 layer separates the aluminum material from the titanium material.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Publication 2009/0197116), Zhu et al. (WO 2020/001331) and further in view of Ujimoto et al. (EP 0661126).
In re Claim 7, Cheng as modified by Zhu disclose the limitations as noted above, Cheng further disclosing that titanium and aluminum plates (i.e. exterior titanium portion and interior metal) may be bonded by pressing means such as rolling or exploding and thus where the interior metal contacts the exterior titanium portion. Cheng, paragraph 0015. Cheng and/or Zhu do not explicitly disclose wherein the intermetallic interface comprises a discontinuous layer between the interior metal and the exterior titanium portion.
Ujimoto discloses an intermetallic interface (“intermetallic compounds”) between a titanium portion (p. 4, ll. 52-58) and an interior metal (Id. aluminum) portion, wherein the intermetallic interface comprises a discontinuous layer between the interior metal and the exterior titanium portion (Ujimoto teaches explosively bonding aluminum or aluminum alloy to titanium or titanium alloy and forming a bonded interface in which intermetallic compounds are present in a scattered state as extremely small localized lumps along portions of the interface while other portions of the interface constitute direct metallurgical bonding between the two metals without an intervening intermetallic compound. Ujimoto, pp. 3-5; Example 6, pp. 12-13; claims 2-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to have provided explosive cladding bonding techniques between titanium and aluminum as disclosed in Ujimoto with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Cheng to reduce the amount of brittle intermetallic material thereby increasing the directly bonded area and thereby improve bond strength and impact strength. The combination is suggestive since Cheng expressly identifies exploding as an appropriate bonding technique. Cheng, paragraph 0015.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Publication 2009/0197116) in view of Zhu et al. (WO 2020/001331).
In re Claim 8, Cheng discloses a housing 10 for an electronic device, comprising: an exterior titanium portion 11 (Figure 3; paragraph 0010) at least partially defining a first engagement feature (See Figure 3, the curvature at the edges of the portion 11 being a first engagement feature); and an interior metal portion 12 joined to the exterior titanium portion.
Cheng does not explicitly disclose engagement features on the interior surface of the interior metal portion. However, providing such was not new in the art of device housing manufacturing at a time before the effective filing date. For example, Zhu discloses a first engagement feature (“functional slot”) formed in an exterior titanium portion (Example 6 discloses an outer titanium portion) and a second engagement feature (“functional slot”) formed in an interior metal portion (6063 aluminum layer disclosed in Example 6), wherein the first and second engagement features mechanically engage a non-metallic portion (injection molded polymer fills the slot across both layers and therefore contacts and engages both the titanium exterior portion and the aluminum interior portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to have provided a first and second engagement feature, as taught in Zhu, with the housing for an electronic device as otherwise disclosed in Cheng. The addition of engagement features allows for components (such as antenna insulators) to be attached to the housing and to electrically isolate desired regions of the housing.
In re Claim 9, Zhu discloses wherein the non-metallic portion comprises plastic (Example 6 injects PBT containing glass fiber into the functional slots, PBT being a plastic).
In re Claim 13, Zhu discloses wherein the second engagement feature comprises a plurality of etched features on the engagement surface of the interior metal portion. Zhu teaches holes/grooves on the functional groove wall to anchor the injected polymer. Zhu, p. 13, final paragraph. Separately, Zhu discloses chemical etching as a surface roughening technique that forms rough structures on metal surface. Zhu, p. 10, third paragraph. Accordingly chemical etching to form the anchoring features on the interior aluminum portion of the groove wall.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Publication 2009/0197116), Zhu et al. (WO 2020/001331), Sun et al. (US Publication 2014/0360974) and further in view of Mertens et al. (US Publication 2014/0011020).
In re Claim 10, Cheng as modified by Zhu disclose the limitations of Claim 8 as noted above, but do not explicitly disclose where the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature comprise a plurality of pores of an oxide layer.
Sun discloses treating aluminum or an aluminum alloy surface by anodization to form an aluminum oxide layer containing a plurality of nanopores. Sun, paragraphs 0007-0009, 0021-0026. Sun further discloses injection molding a resin onto the treated aluminum surface such that the resin enters and fills the nanopores, thereby joining the resin to the aluminum. Id at paragraphs 0027-0035, 0050 and 0056-0062.
Mertens discloses oxidizing the surface of titanium or titanium alloy to produce a fixed titanium-oxide layer comprising a plurality of nanotubes or open pores. Mertens, paragraphs 0004, 0008-0009 and 0021-0024. Mertens further discloses joining organic materials to the titanium through the open pores. Id at paragraphs 0020-0026 and 0030-0035.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to have used a bonding technique like that disclosed in Sun to attach a non-metallic portion to aluminum and a bonding technique like that disclosed in Mertens to attach a non-metallic portion to titanium on the titanium/interior metal housing as otherwise disclosed in Cheng as modified by Zhu. Sun expressly teaches that its porous oxide treatment process increases the connection force and tensile strength between an aluminum substrate and a non-metallic portion (e.g. molded resin). Likewise, Mertens expressly teaches a porous oxide treatment process for titanium that increases the strength and durability of attaching a non-metallic portion (e.g. organic material) to the titanium. The combination is also suggestive in that Zhu and Mertens both disclose improving the attachment of a non-metallic or organic material to a titanium surface.
In re Claim 11, Cheng as modified by Zhu, Sun and Mertens discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose wherein: a density of the plurality of pores is between approximately 30% and 65%; and an average pore depth of the plurality of pores is between 25 µm and 50 µm.
However, Sun does disclose pore depth as a property of the pores formed in the oxide layer being important for maintaining resin to aluminum adhesion. Sun, paragraphs 0026 and 0031. Sun discloses pore depths from approximately 0.5 µm to 9.5 µm and that the pores are distributed across the oxide surface which improves connectivity, tensile strength and integral joining between the non-metallic portion and the aluminum. Id.
Mertens similarly teaches that the pore morphology may be produced in a targeted manner and that dimensions of the pores may be controlled using known anodization parameters, including electrolyte composition, temperature, voltage and treatment time. Mertens, paragraphs 0009 and 0034-0035. Mertens teaches that the porous morphology improves the long-term adhesion between the non-metallic portion and the titanium surface. Id at paragraphs 0004 and 0030-0332.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housing manufacturing to have produced a result effective variable of 30 to 65 % pore density and 25 µm to 50 µm pore depth given the general conditions of the pore density and morphology were disclosed as being relevant to improving adhesion in both Sun and Mertens as described above. In other words, Sun and Mertens disclosed known treatment parameters such as treatment duration, voltage, electrolyte concentration, temperature and number of treatment cycles to vary pore density and pore depth to achieve the desired amount of adhesion between a non-metallic portion and titanium and/or aluminum.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Publication 2009/0197116), Zhu et al. (WO 2020/001331) and further in view of Huang et al., “A New Method of Hybrid Friction Stir Welding Assisted by Friction Surfacing for Joining Dissimilar Ti/Al Alloy,” Materials Letters, Vol. 207, pp. 172-175, July 19, 2017 (hereinafter Huang).
In re Claims 12 and 14, Cheng as modified by Zhu discloses the limitations as noted above, Cheng further disclosing wherein the interior metal portion comprises aluminum (Cheng, paragraph 0010), and Zhu disclosing wherein a non-metallic portion is coupled to an engagement surface via a mechanical surface interlocking structure (Zhu, paragraphs 0046, 0108; Steps S61-S62) but they do not explicitly disclose an intermetallic compound disposed between the exterior titanium portion and the interior metal portion. However, providing such an interface was known in the art before the effective filing date. For example, Huang discloses an intermetallic interface (TiAl3) having a thickness of 1 micrometer to as small as 250 nanometers. Huang, p. 172, Introduction. Huang also discloses wherein the intermetallic compound between the titanium portion and the aluminum metal portion includes a mechanical surface interlocking structure (See Huang, Figure 3d) between the exterior titanium portion and the interior metal portion. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device housings at a time before the effective filing date to have provided an intermetallic interface between the exterior and interior metal portions, as otherwise disclosed in Cheng, to improve the joining of the titanium and aluminum. Huang teaches that controlling/minimizing the thickness of the TiAl3 intermetallic interface improves joining of the dissimilar materials. Cheng also suggest that the titanium and aluminum portions may be formed by rolling and exploding which suggests formation of an intermetallic interface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable, but for the 112a rejections above, if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights