Office Action in 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 --
`
`ai:8J Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 12 August 2011 .
`bO This action is made FINAL
`cO A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire g month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part I
`THE FOLLOWING ATIACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`1. D Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PT0-892.
`3. D Interview Summary, PT0-474.
`4. o_
`2. D Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`Claims 3.4.6-8. 11.13-15.17.18 and 21-29 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims
`
`Claims
`
`are not subject to reexamination.
`
`have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims __ are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 3. 4. 6-8. 13-15. 17 18 and 21-29 are rejected.
`
`Claims __ are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on
`
`are acceptable.
`
`Part II SUMMARY OF ACTION
`1 a. 1:8]
`1b. D
`2. D
`3. D
`1:81
`4.
`5. D
`6. D
`1. D
`a. D
`a)O All b)O Some* c)O None
`1 D been received.
`20 not been received.
`
`The proposed drawing correction, filed on __ has been (7a)0 approved (7b)0 disapproved.
`
`Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`30 been filed in Application No.
`
`40 been filed in reexamination Control No. __
`
`50 been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`9. D Since the proceeding appears to be in condition.for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11,453 O.G. 213.
`1 0. D Other: __
`
`cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20120113
`
`IPR2015-01087 - Ex. 1014
`Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Petitioners
`1
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination First Office Action
`
`Preliminary Matters
`
`This Office Action is taken up in response to the Patent Owner's Statement filed
`
`on 08/12/2011 that was filed in response to an Order granting reexamination of Claims
`
`1-21 of US Patent 6,057,221 to Bernstein et al. (Bernstein '221) made on 06/23/2011.
`
`On April14, 2011 Patent Owner/Requester filed a Preliminary Amendment in
`
`which Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 20 were canceled; Claim 3 made independent
`
`by combining with Claim 1; Claims 6, 7 and 13 made dependent upon claim 3; Claims 8,
`
`15 and 21 amended by correcting informal matters; Claim 17 made independent by
`
`combining with Claims 1 and 13; and new dependent Claims 22-29 added. Thus, of the
`
`original21 claims, 12 will be reexamined, and 8 new claims will be examined. Claims 1,
`
`11, 14 and 17 are independent claims. Thus, 20 claims, namely, Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 11,
`
`13-15, 17, 18 and 21-29 are presented for reexamination. All amendments must be
`
`made pursuant to 37 CFR 1.530(d)-U) (See MPEP 2250).
`
`Due to the rather lengthy number of references and the involved prosecution of
`
`this case in which claims have been amended, added, combined and canceled, the
`
`claim chart has been used in a limited fashion since it has been difficult to follow the
`
`proposed line of reasoning for the numerous rejections (of which many of the rejections
`
`were based upon canceled and/or amended claims). The Patent Owner's Statement
`
`has been used as much as possible.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S. C. 112:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S. C. 112, second paragraph since it is not
`
`understood what is meant by "and the cross sectional area of each of the first and
`
`second electrically-conductive lines is defined by a width of the corresponding via".
`
`Where is this described in the specification and what does it mean? For example, how
`
`does this relate to the cross-sectional area of the recited cut-link pad? At present, this
`
`limitation is unclear as to what is meant, and therefore, indefinite.
`
`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 -
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in
`the United States.
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nishimura.
`
`The limitations of Claim 11 are disclosed as proposed by the Claim Chart on page 36-
`
`37 of the Request, which is incorporated herein by reference. The P/O's argument that
`
`Nishimura is "silent as to the thermal conductivity of the high absorbing portion 2c
`
`and/or the low absorbing portions 2d" are not well taken. That is, it is viewed that "high
`
`absorbing" for the fuse translates to "greater thermal conductivity" for the fuse since the
`
`object with both is to break (blow) the fuse. See col. 7, line 51 of Nishimura. Thus, this
`
`claim is anticipated by Nishimura.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page4
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.~. 103(a) which forms the basis f~r 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 1 02 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 23, 25,26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Koyou, of record in view of Wada, of record.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, pages 44-46 of the Claim Chart indicate that Koyou discloses
`
`the basic features of Claim 3 (which includes the features of Claim 1) except for "the
`
`cut-link pad having substantially less thermal resistance per unit length than each of the
`
`first and second lines"; and "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".
`
`Those portions of the Claim Chart directed to features of Claim 3 admitted as disclosed
`
`by Koyou are incorporated by reference.
`
`However, those features quoted above alleged as missing in Koyou are
`
`disclosed by Wad a in the Claim Chart on pages 40-41. See paragraphs 10-12 of Wad a,
`
`and pages 40-41 of the Claim Chart, which are incorporated by reference. It would
`
`have been obvious to apply the teachings of Wad a to Koyou for the reason that both
`
`Koyou and Wada are directed to common objectives employing common structure,
`
`namely, providing a cut-link pad that is "fusable with an energy beam having lower
`
`energy" for a fuse device/method (Abstract of Wad a and Abstract of Koyou).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011 ,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Answer to P/O's Arguments in Statement regarding Claim 3
`
`The Patent Owner has asserted that "the material of the fuse pad 1 [Figs 1 a and
`
`1 b in Koyou] is greater than the width of contact holes 2a and 2b and of the
`
`interconnection lines 3a, 3b." And, that "the material of the fuse pad 1 is continuous
`
`with and formed at the same time as the material in the contact holes 2a - 2b, so
`
`material in the contact holes 2a and 2b is within the laser spot (note the depressions in
`
`fuse member 1 in the regions of the contact holes 2a-2b)". And therefore, "the material
`
`in each of contact holes 2a, 2b is part of the fuse ... " (Statement page 3)
`
`In other words, because the material in the contact holes 2a and 2b has a greater
`
`thermal resistance than the material of fuse 1, and is continuous with (and therefore part
`
`of) fuse 1, the Patent Owner alleges that the thermal resistance of fuse 1 is "either
`
`equal to or greater than the thermal resistance of interconnect lines 3a and 3b" (P/0
`
`Statement, page 3).
`
`This reading of Koyou is deemed unduly narrow, selective and therefore,
`
`erroneous. First of all, looking at the Fig. 2 embodiment of Koyou, it is only fuse
`
`member 1 0 that is identified in Koyou as the fuse member having substantially less
`
`thermal resistance per unit length, not the end portions 1 Oa and 1 Ob that interconnect
`
`with respective electrically-conductive lines 11 a and 11 b (para. 15-16 of Koyou). Even
`
`if fuse member 10 includes end portions 1 Oa and 1 Ob, there is no requirement in the
`
`claims of Bernstein '221 to have the entire fuse member to have the claimed thermal
`
`resistance per unit length. To disqualify Koyou based upon the material in the contact
`
`holes in Koyou (when this material is not even part of the fuse member) is an unduly
`
`5
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`narrow interpretation of this reference, and therefore, improper under MPEP § 2111.
`
`That is, the metal in contact holes 1 Oa and 1 Ob of fuse member 10 is for making
`
`electrical contact with wiring lines 11 a and 11 b, not for serving as the portion that will
`
`melt/break when hit by the laser (para. 17). Koyou makes it clear that it is the fuse 10
`
`portion that is the "disconnection portion" not the end portions 1 Oa and 1 Ob (para. 18).
`
`Therefore, only the fuse members in each of the embodiments of Koyou/Wada
`
`combination are seen as the claimed, "cut-link pad having substantially less thermal
`
`resistance per unit length than each of the first and second lines" (not in combination
`
`with the metal in the contact holes).
`
`Regarding the width of the fuse member criticism (page 2 of Statement), without
`
`any evidence presented as to the criticality of the ten percent limitation for the fuse
`
`member over other widths, simply claiming an amount by which it is wider (or different
`
`than that shown by the Koyou/Wada combination) is not novel and non-obvious, In re
`
`Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Patent Owner's
`
`arguments to the contrary notwithstanding on pages 4-11 of the Statement, since Wada
`
`clearly discloses making the fuse member wider than the wiring lines (50% in para. 1 0),
`
`simply claiming an amount by which it is wider is not novel and non-obvious. This is
`
`nothing more than routine engineering skill which is shown to be known by the
`
`Koyou/Wada combination.
`
`Regarding cut-link pad having an inner surface facing the substrate and an
`
`opposing outer surface facing away from the substrate, the first and second electrically-
`
`conductive lines extending from the inner surface into the substrate, this feature is
`
`6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`shown by Koyou in Fig. 1 a, 1 b, for example, in that the inner surface of cut-link pad 1
`
`faces a substrate (e.g., see para. 2) and an outer surface facing away from the
`
`substrate. The first and second electrically-conductive lines 3a, 3b extend from the
`
`inner surface (via 2a, 2b) into the substrate as recited, to thus meet this limitation in
`
`Claim 3. Claim 3 is therefore, not patentable.
`
`Regarding Claim 4, note (para. 9) that the laser beam D extends across the
`
`entirety of the cut-link pad L (Fig. 1 of Koyou) to thus meet this limitation in Claim 4.
`
`Regarding Claims 6 and 7, as with Claim 3 above, since the Koyou/Wada
`
`combination already shows making the fuse member wider than the wiring lines, then
`
`simply claiming an amount by which it is wider (25% in Claim 6, and 50% in Claim 7) is
`
`not novel and non-obvious. This is nothing more than routine engineering skill which is
`
`shown to be known in Koyou and disclosed expressly by Wada.
`
`Regarding Claim 8, as pointed out above, the basic features of Claim 8,
`
`dependent upon Claim 3 are shown by Koyou. Not specifically disclosed by Koyou is
`
`the material for use in the interconnecting wiring to be the same as used in the fuse
`
`member. This feature is disclosed by Wada as noted in the Claim Chart on page 42,
`
`and in Wada on page 6 in which it is disclosed that, e.g., aluminum can be used for both
`
`the fuse member and the wiring. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to employ the identical materials for both the
`
`first and second electrically-conductive lines, and the cut-link pad in Koyou as taught by
`
`Wada for the reason of saving manufacturing costs and efficient use of materials.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding Claim 11, the limitations of Claim 11 are disclosed as proposed by the
`
`Claim Chart on page 47-48 of the Request, to which features that are admitted found in
`
`Koyou are incorporated herein by reference. The "believed to be missing" information
`
`(page 47) for the "cut-link pad" limitation in the proposed rejection is founga on page 40
`
`of the Claim Chart in the proposed rejection of Claim 1 for the "cut-link pad" limitation
`
`based upon Wada. As in the rejection of Claim 3 above, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to apply the teachings of
`
`Wada to Koyou for the reason that both Koyou and Wada are directed to common
`
`objectives employing common structure, namely, providing a cut-link pad that is "fusable
`
`with an energy beam having lower energy" for a fuse device/method (Abstract of Wad a
`
`and Abstract of Koyou). Thus, the cut-link pad having substantially less thermal
`
`resistance per unit length than each of the first and second lines, as explained above in
`
`the rejection of Claim 3, is present in the Koyou/Wada combination rendering Claim 11
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Insofar as understood, regarding new Claim 23, note Figs 1 a, 1 b in Koyou in
`
`which cut-link pad 1 shows a greater cross-sectional area than the first and second
`
`electrically-conductive lines 3a, 3b, wherein it is inherent that the cross-sectional area of
`
`the cut-link pad 1 is the product of a width and a height of the cut-link pad, and is
`
`greater than the cross-sectional area of the cut-link pad. See the clear suggestion for
`
`this in paragraphs 11-13 in Koyou. The remaining part of this claim, i.e., "and the cross-
`
`sectional area of each of the first and second electrically-conductive line is defined by a
`
`8
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`width of the corresponding via" is not understood. See the indefinite rejection above for
`
`this claim.
`
`Regarding new Claim 25, note that Koyou discloses that fuse member 10 "must
`
`be formed to be at most 5 !Jm which would include the 2-3 !Jm limitation recited, and,
`
`that the first and second electrically-conductive lines 3a, 3b are disclosed by Koyou as
`
`"smaller than the disconnection cross-sectional area of fuse member 1 0" (second
`
`column, page 3, para. 16) which would include the diameter of about 0.5 microns
`
`recited. As noted above, unless there is some criticality disclosed for these dimensions,
`
`once again, this is nothing more than routine skill shown to be known by Koyou. Thus,
`
`this claim is not patentable.
`
`Regarding new Claim 26, note as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 3 above,
`
`that this feature is shown by Koyou in Fig. 1 a, 1 b, for example, in that the inner surface
`
`of cut-link pad 1 faces the substrate and an outer surface facing away therefrom to thus
`
`meet this limitation, and render this clai~ unpatentable.
`
`Regarding new Claim 28, note the second column of page 3 in Koyou wherein
`
`paragraph 16 discloses "aluminum" for the material of the cut-link pad to thus meet this
`
`claim, and render this claim unpatentable.
`
`Claims 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over the Koyou in view of Wada and further in view of Lou.
`
`Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 3 above for how the Koyou/Wada
`
`combination renders obvious the Claim 3 features in claim 13. Lou, as pointed out
`
`regarding the proposed rejection of Claim 13 in the Claim Chart on page 52, discloses
`
`9
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`the passivating layer recited. It would have been obvious under 35 USC 103 to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to apply a passivating layer to cover
`
`the cut-link pad as taught by Lou on the cut-link pad in Koyou for the reason given in
`
`Lou, namely, to provide a low cost process of manufacture for a fusible link (col. 2, line
`
`56 in Lou).
`
`Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 3 above for how the limitations of
`
`Claim 3 are rendered obvious by the Koyou/Wada combination. Lou, as pointed out
`
`above regarding the proposed rejection of Claim 13 in the Claim Chart on page 52,
`
`discloses the passivating layer recited. It would have been obvious under 35 USC 103
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to apply a passivating layer
`
`to cover the cut-link pad as taught by Lou on the cut-link pad in the Koyou/Wada
`
`combination for the reason given in Lou, namely, to provide a low cost process of
`
`manufacture for a fusible link (col. 2, line 56 in Lou). Thus, Claim 17 is not patentable.
`
`Regarding Claim 18, note para. 9 in Koyou that the laser beam D extends across
`
`the entirety of the cut-link pad L (Fig. 1 of Koyou) to thus meet this limitation, and render
`
`this claim unpatentable.
`
`Regarding Claim 21, note that the cut-link pad 10, which is made of material
`
`having less thermal resistance in Koyou than the contact holes/lines (see para. 16-18),
`
`ipso, facto, has "greater thermal conductivity" as recited. Thus, this limitation in Claim
`
`21 is not patentable.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding new Claim 22, note that Koyou discloses in the second column of
`
`page 3 in which paragraph 16 discloses "aluminum" for the material of the cut-:link pad
`
`to thus meet this claim.
`
`Regarding new Claim 24, note col. 3, line 55 in which Lou discloses silicon nitride
`
`for the passivating layer to thus meet this claim.
`
`Regarding new Claim 27, note that the silicon nitride covering the cut-link pad
`
`recited for the passivating layer is met by Lou, col. 3, line 49. It would have been
`
`obvious under 35 USC 103 to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention
`
`to apply the passivating layer feature of Lou in the KoyouNVada combination for the
`
`reason given in Lou, namely, to provide for low cost manufacturing (col. 2, line 56 of
`
`Lou). Thus, this claim is not patentable.
`
`Claims 14, 15 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Wad a in view of Lou.
`
`Regarding Claim 14, the proposed rejection of Claim 14 of Wada in view of Lou,
`
`as presented on page 52-53 of the Claim Chart in the Request showing the features
`
`recited by this claim is accepted essentially as proposed by Patent Owner. This
`
`proposed rejection is incorporated herein by reference. It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to combine Lou with Wada for
`
`the reason given in Lou, namely, to provide a low cost process of manufacture for a
`
`fusible link (col. 2, line 56 in Lou). The argument in the Statement that Lou is silent as
`
`to the hardness is not well taken since it is well known that silicon nitride (layer 16) is
`
`harder than silicon for the substrate (11 ). Thus, this claim is not patentable.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding Claim 15, note that the silicon nitride feature recited for the
`
`passivating layer is met by Lou, col. 3, line 49. This feature is proposed on page 53 of
`
`the Claim Chart in the Request, and is accepted essentially as proposed by Patent
`
`Owner, and incorporated herein by reference. Thus, this claim is not patentable.
`
`Regarding new Claim 29, note that Wada discloses that width of the cut-link pad
`
`is 2 ~m and the lines are 1 ~m (para. 1 0) which provides the "at least 50% greater" cut-
`
`link pad limitation recited in this claim. Thus, this claim is not patentable.
`
`Proposed Rejections Not Accepted
`
`The proposed rejections of claims 6-8 based upon Wada and Nishimura will not
`
`be made because it is agreed that these references fail to show "inner surface facing
`
`the substrate and an opposing outer surface facing away from the substrate".
`
`The proposed rejection of Claims 13 and 14 based upon Nishimura will not be
`
`made because it is agreed that Nishimura fails to show or disclose a "passivating layer"
`
`covering the cut-link pad (Claim 13) or "a passivating layer harder than the substrate"
`
`(Claim 14).
`
`The proposed rejection of Claim 13 based upon Wada in combination with
`
`McClure will not be made because it is agreed that both Wada and McClure fail to
`
`disclose that "wherein the electrically-conductive cut-link pad has an inner surface
`
`facing the substrate and an opposing outer surface facing away from the substrate, the
`
`first and second electrically-conductive lines extend from the inner surface into the
`
`substrate", as recited in Claim 3 (from which limitation this claim includes).
`
`12
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`The proposed rejections of Claims 17 and 18 based upon Koyou in combination
`
`with McClure, and Nishimura in combination with Koyou will not be made because it is
`
`agreed that Koyou in combination with McClure and Nishimura fail to show that the
`
`"passivating layer covers the cut-link pad", as recited.
`
`The proposed rejections of Claim 21 based upon (1) Nishimura; (2) Nishimura in
`
`combination with Koyou; (3) Nishimura in combination with Wada; (4) Wada in
`
`combination with McClure and Koyou; and (5) Wada in combination with Lou and Koyou
`
`will not be made because it is agreed that none of these references show, inter alia, the
`
`"passivating layer covering the cut-link pad" (Claim 13).
`
`Conclusion
`
`No claim is patentable.
`
`Papers to be submitted in Response to Action
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or
`
`declarations, or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be
`
`submitted in response to this Office action. Submissions after the next Office action,
`
`which is intended to be a final action, will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR
`
`1.116, after final rejection and 37 CFR 41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly enforced.
`
`Amendments proposed in Reexamination
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`formally presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees
`
`required by 37 CFR 1.20(c).
`
`Extension of time in Reexamination
`
`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
`
`reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550(a)).
`
`Extension of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR
`
`1.550(c).
`
`Litigation Reminder
`
`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. 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.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`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.gov/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 Heyman
`at telephone number 571 272-5730.
`
`Signed:
`/John Heyman/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`Central Reexamination Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`/Erik Kielin/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`MARK J. REINHART
`CAU SPE~AU 3992
`
`15
`
`

`
`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-RXI
`
`3214
`
`7590
`01/26/2012
`36872
`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: 01/26/2012
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PT0-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`16