DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 10,622,554 B2 (“554 Patent”). 554 Patent issued on April 14, 2020 with claims 1-20 from application 16/419,165 filed on May 22, 2019, which is a continuation of application 16/230,031, which is a continuation of application 15/941,153, which is a continuation of application 15/400,889, which is a continuation of application 14/219,532, which is a division of application 14/860,657, which is a division of application 13/158,171 filed on June 10, 2011.
This application was filed on January 28, 2025. Since this date is after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This application is a continuation reissue of reissue application 17/658,470 (now US RE50,331 E).
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant filed these claims and demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 554 Patent (see claims filed on April 8, 2022 in parent reissue application 17/658,470).
The most recent amendment was filed on January 28, 2025. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-20: Canceled
Claims 21-40: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
554 Patent (US 10,622,554 B2)
Wang (US 2010/0195380 A1)
Hosotani (US 2006/0221680 A1)
US 8,686,484 B2
US 9,419,208 B2
US 10,516,103 B1
US RE50,331 E
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Examiner objects to the specification amendment.
Claims 21-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251.
Claims 28, 31, and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(e) as being anticipated by Wang.
Claims 21-27, 29, 30, 32, and 34-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hosotani.
Claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 8,686,484 B2.
Claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,419,208 B2.
Claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,516,103 B1.
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28-32, and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35, 36, 38, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,331 E.
Summary of the Claims
554 Patent is directed to a magnetoresistive element including a fixed magnetic layer and a free magnetic layer. Claim 28 is representative:
28. A magnetoresistive device, comprising:
a free magnetic layer including a first surface and a second surface;
a conductor positioned proximate the first surface of the free magnetic layer;
a fixed magnetic layer positioned proximate the second surface of the free magnetic layer;
a first intermediate layer positioned between the conductor and the first surface of the free magnetic layer; and
a second intermediate layer positioned between the fixed magnetic layer and the second surface of the free magnetic layer.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are the independent claims. Claim 21 further recites dielectric layers. Claim 35 further recites a free magnetic layer with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy.
Certificate of Correction in Parent Reissue
This reissue application is a continuation reissue of US RE50,331 E. The prior reissue patent has issued without the cross reference to this reissue application of the family which is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(a). Accordingly, Applicant must request a Certificate of Correction in the prior reissue patent to insert language in the first sentence of the specification, such as:
“Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of patent US 10,622,554 B2. The reissue applications are US RE50,331 E and 19/039,506.”
Specification
Examiner objects to the amendment to the specification filed on January 28, 2025. Matter to be omitted by reissue must be marked with brackets, not strikethrough. See 37 CFR 1.173(d).
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The declaration is a copy of the one filed in prior reissue 17/658,470. The statement of error in this declaration describes an error in 554 Patent that was already corrected by 17/658,470 (now US RE50,331 E). The declaration in the present reissue application must identify a new error; or if the same error corrected in the parent is also being corrected in the continuation reissue application, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for a reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012. For example, Applicant should explain how a same error is being corrected in a different way in this reissue application.
Applicant must file a new declaration (rather than merely correct the error statement in remarks) as no proper declaration has been yet entered in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 21-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 28, 31, and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(e) as being anticipated by Wang.
Regarding independent claim 28, Wang discloses a magnetoresistive device (Figure 6; see also Figure 3), comprising:
a free magnetic layer 174 including a first surface and a second surface (paragraph [0032]);
a conductor 190 positioned proximate the first surface of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0032]);
a fixed magnetic layer (i.e., spin polarizer layer 172) positioned proximate the second surface of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0032]);
a first intermediate layer (i.e., second tunnel barrier 176) positioned between the conductor and the first surface of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0024]); and
a second intermediate layer (i.e., first tunnel barrier 177) positioned between the fixed magnetic layer and the second surface of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 31, Wang discloses that at least one of the first intermediate layer or the second intermediate layer includes at least one of magnesium or oxygen (i.e., Wang discloses tunnel barriers 176 and 177 “comprise oxide material”; paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 33, Wang discloses that the free magnetic layer includes at least one middle layer at least in the sense that Wang discloses that the free magnetic layer is a layer that can be called a “middle” layer of the magnetoresistive device. The claim does not further recite other layers of the free magnetic layer or how specifically a so-called “middle” layer is in the middle of other layers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-27, 29, 30, 32, and 34-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hosotani.
Regarding independent claim 21, Wang discloses a magnetoresistive device (Figure 6; see also Figure 3), comprising:
a free magnetic layer 174 having a first side and a second side (paragraph [0032]);
a conductor 190 positioned proximate the first side of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0032]);
an electrode 164 positioned proximate the second side of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0024]);
a first layer (i.e., second tunnel barrier 176) positioned between the conductor and the first side of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0024]);
a second layer (i.e., first tunnel barrier 177) positioned between the electrode and the second side of the free magnetic layer (paragraph [0024]); and
a middle layer positioned between the first side and the second side of the free magnetic layer (i.e., Wang discloses that the free magnetic layer includes at least one middle layer at least in the sense that Wang discloses that the free magnetic layer is a layer that can be called a “middle” layer of the magnetoresistive device. The claim does not further recite other layers of the free magnetic layer or how specifically a so-called “middle” layer is in the middle of other layers).
Further regarding claim 21, Wang discloses first and second layers comprising second tunnel barrier 176 and first tunnel barrier 177 but does not specifically disclose these layers are dielectric layers.
However, Hosotani teaches a magnetoresistive device (Figure 1B) that is related to the one disclosed by Wang, including a free magnetic layer (i.e., recording layer 113), a conductor (i.e., first write wiring W1), electrode 10, and a fixed magnetic layer 111 (paragraphs [0048]-0052]). Hosotani further teaches tunnel barrier layers 112 and 212 comprising dielectric layers (paragraphs [0052] and [0218]). Regarding claim 21, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use dielectric material as taught by Hosotani to implement the tunnel layers disclosed by Wang with a known material to yield predictable results of properly facilitating interaction between the layers (Wang; paragraph [0024]; Hosotani, paragraph [0218]).
Regarding claim 22, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani, Wang discloses the electrode is a fixed magnetic layer (i.e., electrode 164 further comprises fixed magnetic layer 172).
Regarding claim 23, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani, Wang discloses the free magnetic layer has perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (Wang, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 24-26, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani including layers comprising dielectric material as taught by Hosotani, at least one of or each of the first dielectric layer or the second dielectric layer includes magnesium oxide MgO and at least one of the first dielectric layer or the second dielectric layer includes at least one of magnesium or oxygen (i.e., Hosotani further teaches dielectric material such as magnesium oxide MgO can be used; Hosotani, paragraph [0218]).
Regarding claim 27, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani, Wang generally teaches the free magnetic layer includes a so-called “middle” layer as discussed above with regard to claim 21 but does not specifically disclose a middle layer positioned between a first ferromagnetic layer forming the first side of the free magnetic layer and a second ferromagnetic layer forming the second side of the free magnetic layer. However, again Hosotani teaches a device that is related to the one disclosed by Wang, including a free magnetic layer (i.e., recording layer 113). Hosotani further teaches the free magnetic layer includes a middle layer 113b positioned between a first ferromagnetic layer 113c forming the first side of the free magnetic layer and a second ferromagnetic layer 113a forming the second side of the free magnetic layer (Figure 1B; paragraph [0052]). Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to include a middle layer, a first ferromagnetic layer, and a second ferromagnetic layer as taught by Hosotani in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani in order to effectively implement the writable magnetization layer having changeable magnetization and thereby enable storage of data in the device with predictable results. Wang already discloses the free magnetic layer stores data (paragraphs [0018]-[0025]).
Regarding claims 29, 30, and 32, Wang discloses a device as discussed above with regard to independent claim 28, including first and second intermediate layers comprising second tunnel barrier 176 and first tunnel barrier 177 but does not specifically disclose these layers are dielectric layers or magnesium oxide MgO (although Wang does generally disclose “oxide material”; paragraph [0027]). However, Hosotani teaches a magnetoresistive device (Figure 1B) that is related to the one disclosed by Wang, including a free magnetic layer (i.e., recording layer 113), a conductor (i.e., first write wiring W1), electrode 10, and a fixed magnetic layer 111 (paragraphs [0048]-0052]). Hosotani further teaches tunnel barrier layers 112 and 212 comprising dielectric layers such as magnesium oxide MgO (paragraphs [0052] and [0218]). Regarding claims 29, 30, and 32, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use dielectric material such as magnesium oxide MgO as taught by Hosotani to implement the tunnel layers disclosed by Wang with a known material to yield predictable results of properly facilitating interaction between the layers (Wang; paragraph [0024]; Hosotani, paragraph [0218]).
Regarding claim 34, Wang discloses a device as discussed above with regard to independent claim 28, including a free magnetic layer but does not specifically disclose the free magnetic layer includes at least one middle layer and at least one ferromagnetic layer. However, again Hosotani teaches a device that is related to the one disclosed by Wang, including a free magnetic layer (i.e., recording layer 113). Hosotani further teaches the free magnetic layer includes a middle layer 113b and at least a first ferromagnetic layer 113c (Figure 1B; paragraph [0052]). Regarding claim 34, it would have been obvious to include a middle layer and a first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Hosotani in the device disclosed by Wang in order to effectively implement the writable magnetization layer having changeable magnetization and thereby enable storage of data in the device with predictable results. Wang already discloses the free magnetic layer stores data (paragraphs [0018]-[0025]).
Regarding independent claim 35, Wang discloses a magnetoresistive device (Figure 6; see also Figure 3), comprising:
a fixed magnetic layer 172;
a free magnetic layer 174 with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (Wang, paragraph [0024]),
a layer (i.e., first tunnel barrier 177) positioned between the fixed magnetic layer 172 and the free magnetic layer 174; and
a conductor 190 including electrically conductive material and positioned closer to the free magnetic layer 174 than to the fixed magnetic layer 174 (paragraph [0032]).
Further regarding claim 35, Wang does not specifically disclose that the free magnetic layer including alternating layers of middle layers and ferromagnetic layers or that the tunnel barrier layer is a dielectric layer. However, Hosotani teaches a magnetoresistive device (Figure 1B) that is related to the one disclosed by Wang, including a free magnetic layer (i.e., recording layer 113), a conductor (i.e., first write wiring W1), electrode 10, and a fixed magnetic layer 111 (paragraphs [0048]-0052]). Hosotani further teaches the free magnetic layer includes alternating middle layer 113b and ferromagnetic layers 113a and 113c (Figure 1B; paragraph [0052]). Hosotani further teaches tunnel barrier layers 112 and 212 comprise dielectric layers (paragraphs [0052] and [0218]).
Regarding claim 35, it would have been obvious to include alternating middle layer and ferromagnetic layers as taught by Hosotani in the device disclosed by Wang in order to effectively implement the writable magnetization layer having changeable magnetization and thereby enable storage of data in the device with predictable results. Wang already discloses the free magnetic layer stores data (paragraphs [0018]-[0025]). It further would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use dielectric material as taught by Hosotani to implement the tunnel layers disclosed by Wang with a known material to yield predictable results of properly facilitating interaction between the layers (Wang; paragraph [0024]; Hosotani, paragraph [0218]).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani including a tunnel barrier layer comprising dielectric material as taught by Hosotani, the dielectric layer includes magnesium oxide MgO or at least one of magnesium or oxygen (i.e., Hosotani further teaches dielectric material such as magnesium oxide MgO can be used; Hosotani, paragraph [0218]).
Regarding claim 38, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani, Hosotani teaches that each of the middle layers 113b is sandwiched between at least two ferromagnetic layers 113a and 113c (Hosotani, Figure 1B; paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 39, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani, Hosotani teaches that a number of the ferromagnetic layers is different from a number of the middle layers 9 (i.e., two ferromagnetic layers 113a and 113c and one middle layer 113b; Hosotani, Figure 1B; paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 40, in the device taught by Wang in view of Hosotani, Hosotani teaches that each of the middle layers includes metal (such as Co-Fe or Co-Fe-Ni; paragraph [0210]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 8,686,484 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 and claim 20 of US 8,686,484 B2 (which includes all of the limitations of its parent claims 1 and 3), each recite a magnetoresistive device including a free magnetic layer having two sides; a conductor on one side of the free magnetic layer; and an electrode comprising a fixed magnetic layer (or ferromagnetic material) on the other side of the free magnetic layer. The claims each further recite a dielectric layer (or tunnel barrier) on the side between the free magnetic layer and the conductor; and another dielectric layer (or tunnel barrier) on the side between the free magnetic layer and the electrode. Given claim 20 of US 8,686,484 B2, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 by slightly rewording and/or removing limitations. The claims recite substantially the same scope with claim 20 of US 8,686,484 B2 anticipating reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35.
Claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,419,208 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 and claim 1 of US 9,419,208 B2 each recite a magnetoresistive device including a free magnetic layer having two sides; a conductor on one side of the free magnetic layer; and an electrode comprising a fixed magnetic layer on the other side of the free magnetic layer. The claims each further recite an intermediate dielectric layer on the side between the free magnetic layer and the conductor; and another intermediate dielectric layer on the side between the free magnetic layer and the fixed magnetic layer. Given claim 1 of US 9,419,208 B2, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 by slightly rewording and/or removing limitations. The claims recite substantially the same scope with claim 1 of US 9,419,208 B2 anticipating reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35.
Claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,516,103 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 and claim 14 of US 10,516,103 B1 each recite a magnetoresistive device including a free magnetic layer having two sides; a conductor on one side of the free magnetic layer; and an electrode comprising a fixed magnetic layer on the other side of the free magnetic layer. The claims each further recite an intermediate dielectric layer on the side between the free magnetic layer and the conductor; and another intermediate dielectric layer on the side between the free magnetic layer and the fixed magnetic layer. Given claim 14 of US 10,516,103 B1, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 by slightly rewording and/or removing limitations. The claims recite substantially the same scope with claim 14 of US 10,516,103 B1 anticipating reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35.
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28-32, and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35, 36, 38, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,331 E. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 and claim 35 of US RE50,331 E each recite a magnetoresistive device including a free magnetic layer having two sides; a conductor on one side of the free magnetic layer; and an electrode comprising a fixed magnetic layer on the other side of the free magnetic layer. The claims each further recite an intermediate dielectric layer on the side between the free magnetic layer and the conductor; and another intermediate dielectric layer on the side between the free magnetic layer and the fixed magnetic layer. Given claim 35 of US RE50,331 E, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35 by slightly rewording and/or removing limitations. The claims recite substantially the same scope with claim 35 of US RE50,331 E anticipating reissue claims 21, 22, 28-30, and 35.
Dependent reissue claims 25, 31, and 36 further recite substantially the same limitations (at least one dielectric layer including at least one of magnesium or oxygen) as claim 36 of US RE50,331 E and are also not patentably distinct from claim 36 of US RE50,331 E. Dependent reissue claims 24 and 37 further recite substantially the same limitations (at least one dielectric layer including magnesium oxide) as claim 38 of US RE50,331 E and are also not patentably distinct from claim 38 of US RE50,331 E. Dependent reissue claims 26 and 32 further recite substantially the same limitations (each dielectric layer including magnesium oxide) as claim 39 of US RE50,331 E and are also not patentably distinct from claim 39 of US RE50,331 E.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this reissue application is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Patricia Engle at (571) 272-6660; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991