DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on August 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 2: “wherein thermal treatment” should be “wherein the thermal treatment”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roxhed (US 2014/0202856) in view of Brinz (US 2005/0158457).
Regarding claim 1, Roxhed teaches a process for producing an electrochemical gas sensor (Fig. 1: 1; ¶39), the process comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate (Fig. 1: 14; ¶39) having a through opening configuration (Fig. 1: vias 15, 16; ¶39), wherein the through opening configuration comprises one or more through openings formed in a normal direction of the substrate (Fig. 1: vias 15, 16 are through openings of the substrate 14 in the vertical direction);
applying electrode material (Fig. 1: reference electrode 2; counter electrode 3; ¶39) to an upper surface of the substrate (Fig. 1); and
bonding the electrode material and the substrate (Fig. 1: the electrodes are provided with electrical vias for providing electrical contact through the substrate and thus bonded together) so that the through opening configuration is closed by the electrode material to obtain a contact surface configuration (Fig. 1: then bottom surfaces of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 within each via) electrically contactable on the lower surface of the substrate opposite to the upper surface (since there is a contact surface defined by the via exposed to external environment, it is contactable on the lower surface of the substrate), wherein the contact surface configuration comprises one or more contact surfaces (Fig. 1: then bottom surfaces of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 in the via 15 and 16).
Roxhed does not disclose the bonding of the electrode material and the substrate comprises a thermal treatment of the substrate and the electrode material.
However, Brinz teaches for manufacturing sensor, an electrode paste preferably containing ceramic and metallic components, a so-called cermet, is applied onto substrate and is sintered with the ceramic substrate (¶20). Here, sintering is a thermal treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed by utilizing thermal treatment, e.g., sintering, as taught by Brinz for bonding the electrode material and the substrate because it is a known technique in the art for manufacturing a sensor (¶20). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The designation “such that a portion of the electrode material forms an electrical connection that is integrally connected to the substrate” is the intended result of the “bonding” step and does not further limit the method as claimed because it does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, this designation is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 3, the designation “wherein the substrate is configured as a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane, or wherein the substrate is configured as a liquid-wettable separator” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is directed to intended result of the recited method. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claims 5-6, Roxhed teaches wherein the substrate comprises a glass or a plastic (¶39: plastic (polycarbonate etc.), glass),
wherein the electrode material comprises a metal and/or a metal oxide and wherein the metal and/or a metal oxide is silver, silver oxide (¶39: the counter electrode is made of silver (Ag) and the reference electrode of silver which is oxidized (AgO2)).
Regarding claim 9, Roxhed teaches the step of providing an electrode on the substrate (Fig. 1: the parts of the reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 on the substrate 14), the electrode (Fig. 1: the top parts of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3) being integrally connected to the electrical connection (Fig. 1: the lower parts of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 inside the vias are electrical contract through the substrate) to form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure (Fig. 1), wherein:
the electrode is obtained by the step of applying the electrode material to the upper surface of the substrate (Fig. 1: the top parts of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 on the substrate are electrodes).
The designation “the electrode being integrally connected to the electrical connection to form a piece electrode with electrical connection structure” does not further limit the method as claimed because it does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. MPEP 2111.04.
Here, Roxhed teaches the bottom parts of the reference electrode 2 and the counter electrode 3 are within the electrical vias 15 and 16 through the substrate 14 (Fig. 1; ¶39), and Brinz teaches during manufacturing sensor, the electrode paste is applied onto the substrate and sintered with the substrate (¶20). As a result, the combined Roxhed and Brinz would necessarily result in the electrode material inside the vias as electrical connection and the electrode and the electrical connection form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure.
Regarding claim 11, Roxhed teaches an electrochemical gas sensor (Fig. 1: 1; ¶39) formed by a process (the limitation is product-by-process limitation; even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself because the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I)) comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate (Fig. 1: 14; ¶39) having a through opening configuration (Fig. 1: vias 15, 16; ¶39), wherein the through opening configuration comprises one or more through openings formed in a normal direction of the substrate (Fig. 1: vias 15, 16 are through openings of the substrate 14 in the vertical direction);
applying electrode material (Fig. 1: reference electrode 2; counter electrode 3; ¶39) to an upper surface of the substrate (Fig. 1); and
bonding the electrode material and the substrate (Fig. 1: the electrodes are provided with electrical vias for providing electrical contact through the substrate) so that the through opening configuration is closed by the electrode material to obtain a contact surface configuration (Fig. 1: then bottom surfaces of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3) electrically contactable on the lower surface of the substrate opposite to the upper surface (since there is a contact surface defined by the via exposed to external environment, it is contactable on the lower surface of the substrate), wherein the contact surface configuration comprises one or more contact surfaces (Fig. 1: then bottom surfaces of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 in the via 15 and 16).
Roxhed does not disclose wherein the bonding of the electrode material and the substrate comprises a thermal treatment of the substrate and the electrode material.
However, Brinz teaches for manufacturing sensor, an electrode paste preferably containing ceramic and metallic components, a so-called cermet, is applied onto substrate and is sintered with the ceramic substrate (¶20). Here, sintering is a thermal treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed by utilizing thermal treatment, e.g., sintering, as taught by Brinz for bonding the electrode material and the substrate because it is a known technique in the art for manufacturing a sensor (¶20). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The designation “wherein the bonding of the electrode material and the substrate comprises a thermal treatment of the substrate and the electrode material such that a portion of the electrode material forms an electrical connection that is integrally connected to the substrate” is product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I).
Here, Roxhed teaches the bottom parts of the reference electrode 2 and the counter electrode 3 are within the electrical vias 15 and 16 through the substrate 14 (Fig. 1; ¶39), and Brinz teaches during manufacturing sensor, the electrode paste is applied onto the substrate and sintered with the substrate (¶20). As a result, the combined Roxhed and Brinz would necessarily result in the electrode material inside the vias as electrical connection and the electrode and the electrical connection form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roxhed in view of Brinz, and further in view of Tominaga (US 2014/0113127).
Regarding claim 2, Roxhed and Brinz disclose all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the thermal treatment is a sintering process carried out in a range between 110 ⁰C and 350 ⁰C.
However, Tominaga teaches the heat treatment temperature is determined in consideration of the sinterability of the porous oxide particles and the heat resistance of the electrode substrate and is generally 200 ⁰C to 1000 ⁰C, preferably 300 ⁰C to 900⁰C, which overlaps with the recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed and Brinz by adjusting the sintering temperature within the claimed range because they are known in the prior art as suitable sintering temperature. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, the designation “wherein the substrate is configured as a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane, or wherein the substrate is configured as a liquid-wettable separator” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is directed to intended result of the recited method. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. MPEP 2111.04.
Claim(s) 3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roxhed in view of Brinz, and further in view of Li (US 2023/0304980).
Regarding claims 3 and 7-8, Roxhed and Brinz disclose all limitations of claims 1 and 5-6, respectively, including a plastic substrate made of polycarbonate (¶39). Roxhed and Brinz fail to teach wherein the substrate is configured as a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane, or wherein the substrate is configured as a liquid-wettable separator (claim 3) or wherein the plastic is selected from the group comprising: PTFE, PE, PET, PP, PVC, PEEK, PFA, PVDF, PA, PU and FEP (claims 7-8).
However, Li teaches a hydrogen sensor with a flexible polymer substrate using polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polycarbonate (PC) (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed and Brinz by substituting the substrate of PC with one of PET or PEEK as taught by Li. The suggestion for doing so would have been that PET or PEEK is a suitable material for the substrate of a gas sensor and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B). Further, since the prior art teaches the substrate made of the same materials, e.g., PET, PEEK (Li, ¶8; PGpub, ¶42), they must possess the same property, being a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane or a liquid-wettable separator as recited in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roxhed in view of Brinz and Tominaga, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 4, Roxhed, Brinz, and Tominaga disclose all limitations of claim 2, including a plastic substrate made of polycarbonate (¶39). Roxhed and Brinz fail to teach wherein the substrate is configured as a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane, or wherein the substrate is configured as a liquid-wettable separator.
However, Li teaches a hydrogen sensor with a flexible polymer substrate using polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polycarbonate (PC) (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed, Brinz, and Tominaga by substituting the substrate of PC with one of PET or PEEK as taught by Li. The suggestion for doing so would have been that PET or PEEK is a suitable material for the substrate of a gas sensor and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B). Further, since the prior art teaches the substrate made of the same materials, e.g., PET, PEEK (Li, ¶8; PGpub, ¶42), they must possess the same property, being a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane or a liquid-wettable separator as recited in claim 4.
Claim(s) 10, 12-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roxhed in view of Brinz, and further in view of Berduque (US 2021/0148850).
Regarding claim 10, Roxhed and Brinz disclose all limitations of claim 9, but fails to teach the step of hydrophilization a surface of the electrode.
However, Berduque teaches a gas sensor having a hydrophilic material 205 deposited over the electrodes 110A, 110B, and attracts the electrolyte 114 to remain over the electrodes and keep the electrodes wet (Fig. 6A; ¶91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed and Brinz by hydrophilization of a surface of the electrode, e.g., depositing a hydrophilic material on the electrode, as taught by Berduque because the hydrophilic material would attracts the electrolyte to remain over the electrodes and keep the electrodes wet so that the electrical contact between the electrodes would be maintained to achieve efficient operation of the device (Fig. 6A; ¶91). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Roxhed and Brinz disclose all limitations of claim 11, and a sensor housing (Fig. 1: the side components defining the chamber 13), wherein the substrate is connected to the sensor housing (Fig. 1).
Roxhed and Brinz do not disclose an electrical lead configuration, wherein the electrical lead configuration comprises one or more electrical leads, wherein the electrical lead configuration is connected to the contact surface configuration.
However, Berduque teaches conductive tracks 105A, 105B for connecting the electrodes to external circuit elements (Fig. 1; ¶65). The conductive tracks may extend into the opening formed in the insulating layer 103 (Fig. 1; ¶65) and below the passivation layer 107 that the electrodes pass through (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed and Brinz by incorporating the electrical lead configuration, e.g., electrical leads, to the reference electrode and the counter electrodes as taught by Berduque to connect the contact surface configuration, i.e., the surface inside the via, because they would provide connection between the electrodes and external circuit elements (Fig. 1; ¶65). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Roxhed, Brinz, and Berduque disclose all limitations of claim 12. Roxhed further discloses a diffusion barrier (Fig. 1: the top component of the structure 4 having passages 5 and walls 6a, 6b) connected to the sensor housing (Fig. 1) and configured to hinder a passage of gas from an environment to the substrate and/or to an interior of the sensor housing (since the structure has passages delineated by walls, it would hinder the gas flowing from outside to the chamber and the bottom substrate; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Roxhed and Brinz do not disclose a sealing element arranged between the substrate and the sensor housing.
However, Berduque teaches a cap 111 is sealed to the passivation layer 107, as the top layer of the substrate, by epoxy/adhesive or frit glass 112A, 112B (Fig. 1; ¶69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed by incorporating adhesive for sealing the cap and the top layer of the substrate of the sensor as taught by Berduque. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, the designation “wherein the thermal treatment is a sintering process carried out in a range between 110 ⁰C and 350 ⁰C” is product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 15, the designation “wherein the substrate is configured as a gas-permeable and liquid-tight membrane, or wherein the substrate is configured as a liquid-wettable separator” is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 16-17, Roxhed teaches wherein the substrate comprises a glass or a plastic (¶39: plastic (polycarbonate etc.), glass),
wherein the electrode material comprises a metal and/or a metal oxide and wherein the metal and/or a metal oxide is silver, silver oxide (¶39: the counter electrode is made of silver (Ag) and the reference electrode of silver which is oxidized (AgO2)).
Regarding claim 19, Roxhed teaches the gas sensor further comprising an electrode on the substrate (Fig. 1: reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 on the substrate 14), the electrode (Fig. 1: the top parts of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3) being integrally connected to the electrical connection (Fig. 1: the lower parts of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 inside the vias are electrical contract through the substrate) to form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure (Fig. 1), wherein:
the electrode the electrode comprises the electrode material at the upper surface of the substrate and/or the electrode material at the lower surface of the substrate, or the electrode comprises additional electrode material applied to the electrode material at the upper side of the substrate and/or at the lower side of the substrate (Fig. 1: the top parts of reference electrode 2 and counter electrode 3 on the substrate are electrodes, while the lower parts inside the vias are electrical contract through the substrate).
The designation “the electrode being integrally connected to the electrical connection to form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure” is product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 20, Roxhed in view of Brinz and Berduque discloses all limitations of claim 19. Roxhed and Brinz do not disclose the electrode comprise a surface that has been hydrophilized.
However, Berduque teaches a gas sensor having a hydrophilic material 205 deposited over the electrodes 110A, 110B, and attracts the electrolyte 114 to remain over the electrodes and keep the electrodes wet (Fig. 6A; ¶91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed and Brinz by incorporating a hydrophilic material deposited on the electrode to be the electrode surface as taught by Berduque because the hydrophilic material would attracts the electrolyte to remain over the electrodes and keep the electrodes wet so that the electrical contact between the electrodes would be maintained to achieve efficient operation of the device (Fig. 6A; ¶91). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roxhed in view of Brinz and Berduque, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 18, Roxhed in view of Brinz and Berduque discloses all limitations of claims 16, including a plastic substrate made of polycarbonate (Roxhed, ¶39), but fails to teach wherein the plastic is selected from the group comprising: PTFE, PE, PET, PP, PVC, PEEK, PFA, PVDF, PA, PU and FEP.
However, Li teaches a hydrogen sensor with a flexible polymer substrate using polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polycarbonate (PC) (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roxhed, Brinz, and Berduque by substituting the substrate of PC with one of PET or PEEK as taught by Li. The suggestion for doing so would have been that PET or PEEK is a suitable material for the substrate of a gas sensor and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive in light of new grounds for rejection.
Applicant argues Roxhed does not teach bonding of an electrode material and a substrate that comprises a thermal treatment (Response, p. 8, para. 3). Examiner agrees. Applicant further argues Roxhed and Brinz as a whole fail to teach or suggest bonding of an electrode material and a substrate that comprises a thermal treatment of a substrate and the electrode material such that a portion of the electrode material forms an electrical connection that is integrally connected to the substrate (pp. 8-9: bridging para.). This argument is unpersuasive. First, Brinz teaches using sintering to bond electrode and the substrate (¶20). The designation “such that a portion of the electrode material forms an electrical connection that is integrally connected to the substrate” is the intended result of the “bonding” step and does not further limit the method as claimed (e.g., claim 1). Further, the designation “wherein the bonding of the electrode material and the substrate comprises a thermal treatment of the substrate and the electrode material such that a portion of the electrode material forms an electrical connection that is integrally connected to the substrate” is product-by-process limitation” (e.g., claim 11) is product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding the limitation “the electrode being integrally connected to the electrical connection to form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure,” Examiner notes that the top parts of the reference electrode 2 and the counter electrode 3 are deemed to be the recited electrode, and the bottom parts of the reference electrode 2 and the counter electrode 3 are deemed to be the recited electrical connection (Roxhed, Fig. 1; ¶39). Thus, the combined Roxhed and Brinz would necessarily result in, by sintering, the electrode being integrally connected to the electrical connection within the vias to form a one piece electrode with electrical connection structure.
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 extension fee 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 CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights