Order Granting I Denying Request For
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`90/011,607
`Examiner
`
`JOHN HEYMAN
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6057221
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`··The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address-·
`
`The request for ex parte reexamination filed 30 March 2011 has been considered and a determination has
`been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
`determination are attached.
`
`Attachments: a)O PT0-892,
`
`b)[8J PTO/SB/08,
`
`c)O Other: __
`
`1. [8:1 The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
`
`For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
`Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
`If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
`is permitted.
`·
`2. 0 The request for ex parte reexamination is DENIED.
`
`This decision is not appealable (35 U.S.C. 303(c)). Requester may seek review by petition to the
`Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181 within ONE MONTH from the mailing date of this communication (37
`CFR 1.515(c)). EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUCH A PETITION UNDER 37 CFR 1.181 ARE
`AVAILABLE ONLY BY PETITION TO SUSPEND OR WAIVE THE REGULATIONS UNDER
`37 CFR 1.183.
`
`In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26 ( c ) will be made to requester:
`a) D by Treasury check or,
`b) D by credit to Deposit Account No.
`, or
`c) D by credit to a credit card account, unless otherwise notified (35 U.S.C. 303(c)).
`
`I
`cc:Reauester7 if third nartv reauester)
`U .$. Patent and Trademark Offoce
`PTOL-471 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20110616
`
`IPR2015-01087 - Ex. 1013
`Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Petitioners
`1
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`Decision Granting Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2011 was filed
`
`after the mailing date of the instant Reexam Application on 03/30/2011. The
`
`submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the
`
`information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
`
`Preliminary Matters
`
`The proposed amendment adding claims and changing others in the Request for
`
`Reexamination herein will be addressed upon an action on the merits being made.
`
`Only the. claims issued in the base patent are discussed in this Order.
`
`Substantial New Questions of Patentability
`
`Substantial new questions of patentability affecting Claims 1-21 of the base
`
`patent are raised by the Request for ex parte reexamination based on the following
`
`references:
`
`U.S. Patents:
`
`*Lee et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,608,257 (hereinafter "Lee");
`
`*Lou et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,729,042 (hereinafter "Lou");
`*McClure et al., ·u.s. Paent No. 4,826,785 (hereinafter "McClure");
`
`*Nishimura et al., U.S. Patent No .. 5,872,389 (hereinafter "Nishimura").
`
`Foreign Patent Publications and Non-Patent Literature Documents:
`
`* Koyou, Japan Pat. Appl. Publ. No. 8-213465, published Aug. 20, 1996, and
`corresponding Non-Patent Literature Document (hereinafter "NPL'), Cite No. 1
`(hereinafter "Koyou");
`
`2
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`*Matsumoto, Japan Pat. Appl. Pubi. No. 6-104338, published @r. 15, 1994, and
`corresponding NPL, Cite No. 3 (hereinafter "Matsumoto"); and
`
`* Wada el. al., Japan Pat. Appl. Publ. No. 6-244285, published Sep. 2, 1994, and
`corresponding NPL, Cite No. 2 (hereinafter "Wada").
`
`Of the above seven references, only Lee was cited during the prosecution of
`
`application of the base patent. The Patent Owner Requester stated however, that the
`
`Patentees do not necessarily agree with the characterization (by the Examiner on page
`
`4, para. 4 of the '808 Application). That is, that "the cut-link pad has a simple
`
`continuous shape having no projections extending away therefrom (patentees maintain
`
`that the cut-link pad can have additional parts or a relatively complex structure) or (2)
`
`the shape of the cut-link pad was incorporated into the independent claim(s)". That "the
`
`disclosure of Lee may not have been completely consideted by the Examiner". And,
`
`that "depending on whether a cut-link pad can have a complex structure and include
`
`regions having a narrow neck as described by Lee, a reasonable examiner might
`
`consider these disclosures important in determining whether or not claim is patentable".
`
`This, it is argued in the Request pages 15 and 16, as being contrary to the disclosure of
`
`the base patent which provides otherwise.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The base patent to Bernstein et al (US patent 6,057,221) hereinafter base patent
`
`'221 or Bernstein '221, stems from US patent Application 08/825,808 (Application '808).
`
`A detailed prosecution history is provided on pages 4-7 of the Request, which remarks
`
`are incorporated herein by reference. A Notice of Allowance was issued on 12/08/1999
`
`3
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page4
`
`in the referred to base Application '808 in which the following reasons for allowance
`
`were given:
`
`"the prior art either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
`the limitations of,
`... directing a laser upon an electrically-conductive cut-link pad conductively
`bonded between a first electrically-conductive line and a second electrically(cid:173)
`conductive line on a substrate, the cut-link pad having substantially less thermal
`resistance per unit length than each of the first and second lines, wherein the
`width of the cut-link pad is at least ten percent greater than the width of each of
`the first and second electrically-conductive lines.
`
`As stated in the office action of paper # 8, by incorporating the shape of the cut(cid:173)
`link pad into the independent claim, said claim would be allowable".
`
`Thus, a substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability exists where any prior art
`
`uncovered shows or discloses the shape of the cut-link pad having; (1) substantially
`
`less thermal resistance per unit length than each of the first and second lines, and (2),
`
`wherein the width of the cut-link pad is at least ten percent greater than the width of the
`
`first and second electrically-conductive lines. It is asserted by the Requester that the
`
`prior art cited above provides such teachings.
`
`Requester's Position
`
`The Requester has requested reexamination of Claims 1-21 of base patent '221
`
`as follows:
`
`I. Reexamination of Claims 1-2,6-9,11,13-16, and 19-21 is requested in view of
`Nishimura.
`
`2. Reexamination of Claims 1 and 6-8 is requested in view of Wad a.
`
`3. Reexamination of Claim 1 is requested in view of Matsumoto.
`
`4. Reexamination of Claim 1 is requested in view of Lee.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`5. Reexamination of Claims 1, 3-4 and 11 is requested in view of Koyou. ·
`
`6. Reexamination of Claims 10, 17-18 and 21 is requested in view of Nishimura
`and Koyou.
`
`?.Reexamination of Claims 10, 16 and 21 is· requested in view of Nishimura and
`Wad a.
`
`8.Reexmnination of Claims 12-13 and 19 is requested in view of Wada and
`McClure.
`
`9. Reexamination of Claims 12-15 and 19 is requested in view of Wad a and Lou.
`
`10. Reexamination of Claim 12 is requested in view of Nishimura and McClure.
`
`11. Reexamination of Claim 12 is requested in view of Nishimura and Lou.
`
`12. Reexamination of Claims 17-18 is requested in view of Koyou and McClure.
`
`13 .. Reexamination of Claims 17-18 is requested in view of Koyou and Lou.
`
`14. Reexamination of Claim 21 is requested in view of Wada, McClure and
`Koyou.
`
`15. Reexamination of Claim 21 is requested in view of Wada, Lou and Koyou.
`
`Analysis of the SNQs asserted by the Requester
`
`Issue 1 regarding Nishimura and Claims 1-2. 6-9, 11. 13-16 and 19-21
`
`It is agreed, as stated on pages 7-13 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Nishimura discloses that the width of first a portion 2a is greater than the
`
`width of second portion 2b, and therefore, that the first portion 2a would have less
`
`thermal resistance than the second portion 2b. As such teachings were not present
`
`during the prior examination of base patent '221 and were found important to the
`
`patentability of the claims, a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings
`
`important in determining whether or not Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11, 13-16 and 19-21 are
`
`5
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page6
`
`patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Nishimura raise an SNQ regarding these
`
`claims.
`
`Issue 2 regarding Wada and Claims 1 and 6-8
`
`It is agreed, as stated on pages13-14 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Wad a discloses that the width of the fusing portion 1 a is larger than the
`
`non-fusing portion 1 b, and also that heat resistance of the non-fusing portion has a
`
`higher resistance than the fusing portion. As such teachings were not present during
`
`the prior examination of base patent '221 and were found important to the patentability
`
`of the claims, a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in
`
`determining whether or not Claims 1 and 6-8 are patentable. Therefore, the teachings
`
`of Wada raise an SNQ regarding these claims.
`
`Issue 3 regarding Matsumoto and Claim 1
`
`It is agreed, as stated on page 14 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Matsumoto discloses that the width of center of fuse element 1 is larger
`
`than both end portions thereof, and also, that Matsumoto suggests that the width being
`
`larger at the center provides less thermal resistance per unit length than the end
`
`portions (claim chart page 43). As such teachings were not present during the prior
`
`examination of base patent '221 and were found important to the patentability of the
`
`claims, a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in determining
`
`whether or not Claim 1 is patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Matsumoto raise an
`
`SNQ regarding this claim.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 4 regarding Lee and Claim 1
`
`Page 7
`
`It is not agreed, as asserted on pages 15 and 16 of the Request, that Lee
`
`discloses a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) that hasn't been already
`
`discussed during the prosecution of the base patent '221. That is, as required by 2216
`
`of the MPEP, a request must point out how any questions of patentability raised are
`
`substantially different from those raised in the previous examination of the patent. It
`
`"must be demonstrated that a patent that is relied upon in a proposed rejection presents
`
`a new, non-cumulative technological teaching that was not previously considered and
`
`discussed on the record ... " In the prosecution of base patent '221, the examiner found
`
`claim 1 patentable over Lee, inter alia, with the addition of the limitation to the width of
`
`the fuse-link. The assertions made on page 15 of the Request that the "patentees do
`
`not necessarily agree with the characterization that (1) the cut-link pad has a simple
`
`continuous shap.e having no projections extending away therefrom, or (2) the shape of
`
`the cut-link pad was incorporated into the independent claim/s", fail to provide any new
`
`non-cumulative technological teaching that a reasonable examiner would find important
`
`to the patentability that would raise an SNQ to Claim 1 in view of Lee. Moreover, no
`
`new reference has been cited in combination with Lee to shed any new light for an SNQ
`
`that supports the "characterization" concerns of the patentees. Because requester fails
`
`to show how Lee teaches a feature, not already considered, that was found important to
`
`the patentability of claim 1, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider Lee important in deciding whether or not claim 1 is patentable.
`
`Therefore, no new SNQ has been raised by Lee.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`The above assertion is based solely on patents and/or printed publications
`
`already cited/considered in an earlier concluded examination of the patent being
`
`reexamined. On November 2, 2002, Public Law 107-273 was enacted. Title Ill, Subtitle
`
`A, Section.13105, part (a) of the Act revised the reexamination statute by adding the
`
`following new last sentence to 35 U.S.C. 303(a) and 312(a):
`
`"The existence of a substantial new question of
`
`patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or
`
`printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or
`
`considered by the Office."
`
`For any reexamination ordered on or after November 2, 2002, the effective date
`
`of the statutory revision, reliance on previously cited/considered art, i.e., "old art," does
`
`not necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability
`
`(SNQ) that is based exclusively on that old art. Rather, determinations on whether a
`
`SNQ exists in such an instance shall be qased upon a fact-specific inquiry done on a
`
`case-by-case basis.
`
`In the present instance, there exists no SNQ based solely on Lee. This
`
`reference will therefore, not be considered in this reexamination.
`
`Issue 5 regarding Koyou and Claims 1, 34 and 11
`
`It is agreed as stated on pages 16-18 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Koyou discusses thermal resistance (page 3, paragraph 16), and, that
`
`Fig. 1 shows fuse member 1 having a width "at least ten percent greater than the width
`
`8
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`of the conductive lines" (3a, 3b). As such teachings were not present during the prior
`
`examination of base patent '221 and were found important to the patentability of the
`
`claims, a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in determining
`
`whether or not Claims 1 and 3-4 and 11 are patentable. Therefore, the teachings of
`
`Koyou raise an SNQ regarding these claims.
`
`Issue 6 regarding Nishumura and Kovou and Claims 10, 17-18 and 21
`
`It is agreed as stated on pages 18-21 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Nishimura and Koyou show and disclose the salient features recited by
`
`these dependent claims. Moreover, insofar as Nishimura and Koyou have been shown
`
`to raise an SNQ for independent claim 1, these references also raise an SNQ for
`
`dependent claims 10, 17-18 which come freighted with the limitations of the
`
`independent claim from which they stem. Therefore, the teachings of Nishimura and
`
`Koyou raise an SNQ for these claims.
`
`Issue 7 regarding Nishimura and Wada and Claims 10. 16 and 21
`
`It is agreed as stated on pages 21-23 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Nishimura and Wada show and disclose the salient features recited by
`
`dependent claims 10, 16 and 21. Moreover, insofar as Nishimura and Wada have been
`
`shown to raise an SNQ for independent claim 1, these references also raise an SNQ for
`
`dependent claims 10, ·16 and 21 which come freighted with the limitations of the
`
`independent claim from which they stem. Therefore, the teachings of Nishimura and
`
`Wada raise an SNQ for these claims.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Issue 8 regarding Wada and McClure and Claims 12-13 and 19
`
`It is agreed as stated on pages 23-25 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Wada and McClure show and disclose the salient features recited by
`
`dependent claims 12-13 and 19. Moreover, insofar as Wada and McClure have been
`
`shown to raise an SNQ for independent claim 1, these references also raise an SNQ for
`
`dependent claims 12-13 and 19 which come freighted with the limitations of the
`
`independent claim from which they stem. Therefore, the teachings of Wada and
`
`McClure raise an SNQ for these claims.
`
`Issue 9 regarding Wad a and Lou and Claims 12-15 and 19.
`
`It is agreed as stated on pages 25-28 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Wada and Lou show and disclose the salient features recited by claims
`
`12-15 and 19. Moreover, insofar as Wada and Lou have been shown to raise an SNQ
`
`for independent claims 1 and 14, these references also raise an SNQ for dependent
`
`claims 12-13, 15 and 19 which come freighted with the limitations of the independent
`
`claim from which they stem. Finally, that Lou teaches a silicon oxide forming part of the
`
`substrate. Therefore, the teachings of Wada and Lou raise an SNQ for these claims.
`
`Issue 10 regarding Nishimura and McClure and Claim 12
`
`It is agreed, as stated on page 28 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Nishimura and McClure disclose that the width of fuse element 2a is
`
`larger than both end portions 2b thereof, and therefore, the width 2a being larger would
`
`likely provide less thermal resistance per unit length than the end portions. Moreover,
`
`that McClure teaches a silicon oxide for the substrate thereof. Moreover, insofar as
`
`10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Nishimura and McClure have been shown to raise an SNQ for independent claim 1,
`
`these references also raise an SNQ for dependent claims 12 which comes freighted
`
`with the limitations of the independent claim from which they stem. As such teachings
`
`were not present during the prior examination of base patent '221, a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider these teachings important in determining whether or not Claim
`
`12 is patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Nishimura and McClure raise an SNQ
`
`regarding this claim. ·
`
`Issue 11 regarding Nishimura and Lou and Claim 12
`
`It is agreed, as stated on page 29 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Nishimura and Lou disclose that the width of fuse element 2a is larger
`
`than both end portions 2b thereof, and therefore, the width 2a being larger would likely
`
`provide less thermal resistance per unit length than the end portions. Moreover, that
`
`Lou teaches a silicon oxide forming part of the substrate thereof. Moreover, insofar as
`
`Nishimura and Lou have been. shown to raise an SNQ for independent claim 1, these
`
`references also raise an SNQ for dependent claims 12 which comes freighted with the
`
`limitations of the independent claim from which they stem. As such teachings were not
`
`present during the prior examination of base patent '221, a. reasonable examiner would
`
`consider these teachings important in determining whether or not Claim 12 is
`
`patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Nishimura and Lou raise an SNQ regarding this
`
`claim.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Issue 12 regarding Koyou and McClure and Claims 17-18
`
`It is agreed, as stated on pages 29-30 of the Request, incorporated herein
`
`by reference, that Koyou and McClure disclose that the width of fuse element 1 is larger
`
`than both end portions 3a, 3b thereof, and, that thermal resistance is discussed on page
`
`3 paragraph 16. Moreover, that McClure teaches a passivation layer for the substrate
`
`thereof. Moreover, insofar as Koyou and McClure have been shown to raise an SNQ
`
`for independent claim 1, these references also raise an SNQ for dependent claims 17-
`
`18 which come freighted with the limitations of the independent claim from which they
`
`stem. As such teachings were not present during the prior examination of base patent
`
`'221, a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in determining
`
`whether or not Claims 17-18 are patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Koyou and
`
`McClure raise an SNQ regarding these claims.
`
`Issue 13 regarding Koyou and Lou and Claims 17-18
`
`It is agreed, as stated on pages 30-31 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Koyou and Lou disclose that the width of fuse element 1 is larger than
`
`both end portions 3a, 3b thereof, and, that thermal resistance is discussed on page 3
`
`paragraph 16. Moreover, that Lou teaches a silicon oxide forming part of the substrate
`
`thereof. Moreover, insofar as Koyou and Lou have been shown to raise an SNQ for
`
`independent claim 1, these references also raise an SNQ for dependent claims 17-18
`
`which come freighted with the limitations of the independent claim from which they
`
`stem. As such teachings were not present during the prior examination of base patent
`
`'221, a reasonable examiner would. consider these teachings important in determining
`
`12
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`whether or not Claims 17-18 are patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Koyou and Lou
`
`raise an SNQ regarding these claims.
`
`Issue 14 regarding Wada, McClure and Koyou and Claim 21.
`
`It is agreed, as stated on pages 31-32 of the Request, incorporated herein by
`
`reference, that Wada and Koyou disclose that the width of fuse a element is larger than
`
`end portions thereof, and, that thermal resistance is discussed in both references.
`
`Moreover, that McClure teaches a passivation layer covering a fuse. Moreover, insofar
`
`as Wada, McClure and Koyou have been shown to raise an SNQ for independent claim
`
`1, these references also raise an SNQ for dependent claim 21 which come freighted
`
`with the limitations of the independent claim from which they stem. As such teachings
`
`were not present during the prior examination of base patent '221, a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider these teachings important in determining whether or not Claim·
`
`21 is patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Wada, McClure and Koyou raise an SNQ
`
`regarding these claims.
`
`Issue 15 regarding Wada. Lou and Koyou and Claim 21
`
`It is agreed, as stated on pages 32-33 of the Request, incorporated herein
`
`by reference, that Wada and Koyou disclose that the width of fuse a element is larger
`
`than end portions thereof, and, that thermal resistance is discussed in both references.
`
`Moreover, that Lou teaches a passivation layer covering a fuse. Moreover, insofar as
`
`Wada, Lou and Koyou have been shown to raise an SNQ for independent claim 1,
`
`these references also raise an SNQ for dependent claim 21 which come freighted with
`
`the limitations of the independent claim from which they stem. As such teachings were
`
`13
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011 ,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`not present during the prior examination of base patent '221, a reasonable examiner
`
`would consider these teachings important in determining whether or not Claim 21 is
`
`patentable. Therefore, the teachings of Wada, Lou and Koyou raise an SNQ regarding
`
`these claims.
`
`Teachings not Cumlative
`
`It is noted that all the above prior art teachings are not cumulative to any written
`
`discussion on the record, were not previously considered nor addressed during a prior
`
`examination and the same question of patentability was not the subject of a final holding
`
`of invalidity by Federal Courts.
`
`Extensions of Time
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these
`
`proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and
`
`not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that
`
`exparte reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR
`
`1.550(a)). Extensions of time in exparte reexamination proceedings are provided for in
`
`37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`Amendment in Reexamination Proceedings
`
`Patent owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification and/or
`
`claims in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-U), must be
`
`formally presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees
`
`14
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`required by 37 CFR 1.20(c). See MPEP § 2250(1V) for examples to assist in the
`
`preparation of proper proposed amendments in reexamination proceedings.
`
`Submissions
`
`In order to insure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations
`
`or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in
`
`response to the first Office action on the merits (which does not result in a close of
`
`prosecution). Submissions after the second Office action on the merits, which is
`
`.
`
`intended to be a final action, will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116,
`
`after final rejection and by 37 CFR 41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly enforced.
`
`Notification of Concurrent Proceedings
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR
`
`1.565(a), to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
`
`proceeding, involving the base patent throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding. Likewise, if present, the third party requester is also reminded of the ability
`
`to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course
`
`of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and 2286.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`Correspondence
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be
`directed:
`By Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to: (571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand: Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`https://sportal. uspto.qov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepf. html. EFS-Web offers the
`benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that needs to act on the
`correspondence. Also, EFS- Web submissions are "soft scanned" (i.e., electronically
`uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which offers
`parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the "soft
`. scanning" process is complete.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to John S. Heyman at
`telephone number 571-272-5730.
`
`Signed:
`
`/John S. Heyman/
`Primary Examiner
`Central Reexamination Unit 3992
`(571) 272-5730
`
`Conferees:
`/Erik Kielin/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`MARK J. REINHART
`SPRE-AU 3992
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`16
`
`

`
`.·
`
`·Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`17
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/011,607
`
`03/30/2011
`
`6057221
`
`MIT-7581L-RX1
`
`3214
`
`36872
`7590
`06/23/2011
`THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C.
`215 W FALLBROOK AVE SUITE 203
`FRESNO, CA 93711
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 06/23/2011
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PT0-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`18