DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt is acknowledged of Remarks filed on 11/28/25. No claim has been amended, no new claim has been added and no claim has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 16, 18-21, 23-25, 27-29 and 57-58 are pending and remain under examination on the merits.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Applicant’s claims:
Claim 16 is drawn to a method for improving crop yield, comprising: applying a non-aqueous crop yield improvement agent to a field prier-to-or simultaneous with planting a crop seed, the non-aqueous crop yield improvement agent being independent of a seed-of the crop seed and including: a sugar selected from a monosaccharide or a disaccharide; and an optional fertilizer, wherein the non-aqueous crop yield improvement agent is applied such that the sugar is applied at a rate of at least 25 pounds per acre per application and wherein said application of sugar does not exceed 250 pounds per acre and exposing the crop seed to enhanced levels of carbon dioxide as the sugar is consumed by microflora in soil surrounding the crop seed.
Claims 16, 18-21, 23-25, 27 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtonen et al (WO 2013/128080) in view of Nonomura et al (5,958,104) as evidenced by Anthony et al (WO 02058466).
Lehtonen et al teach fertilizer compositions comprising a carbon source and a source of nitrogen. Carbon is in the form that can be readily up-taken by soil bacteria, and the fertilizer is used to promote uptake of endogenous soil nutrient resources by plant (abstract). An object of Lehtonen’s invention is to provide alternative ways of feeding soil using novel fertilization compositions comprising at least carbon and nitrogen sources. Particularly, the object is to provide fertilizer that enhances function of natural soil bacteria resulting in enhanced microbial activity and thereby availability of mineralized nutrients in soil and activated humus biosynthesis (pg.2, In.28 to pg.3, In.1). In an embodiment, the fertilizer composition is used for fertilizing soil bacteria and plants. Among the preferable uses of the fertilizer composition is for agricultural plant production (pg. 13, In.27-30).
Lehtonen discloses that it is known in the art that addition of glucose into soil activates soil bacteria to degrade soil organic matter in a process called priming effects. Priming effects have been found to depend on the microbial carbon content of the soil: priming effect vs. easily-available substrate carbon added to the soi/microbial carbon content of the organic carbon content of the soil (% by weight). This dependence of glucose induced priming effects is linear to 15% by weight (of added priming carbon in relation to microbial carbon), and after 50% by weight an exponential decrease or even a switch to negative priming effect is often observed at about 500 or 600% by weight. Lehtonen discloses that it is also known nitrogen compounds, e.g., amino acids or fertilizer nitrogen, at low levels strengthen the priming effects. Soil bacteria need two energy carbons for cell respiration to bind one carbon into their cell structure. Soil bacteria bind carbon and nitrogen in their cell structure in the carbon/nitrogen ratio 5:106:1. Nutrients from the turnover of soil bacteria will become available plant nutrients (pg.1, In.21 to pg.2, In.2).
Among the suitable carbon sources include mono- and disaccharides or any mixture thereof, glucose being the most typical monosaccharide, and sucrose as the disaccharide (pg.5, In.5-30). The priming carbon content should be at least 5% by weight (Lehtonen claim 1). In an embodiment, the priming carbon content is at least 33% by weight, most preferably at least 55% by weight (pg.9, In.29-32; Lehtonen claim 2). The amount of the easily available carbon in said carbon source is 2-35% by weight calculated form the dry weight of the fertilizer. The amount of carbon to be added is dependent on the organic carbon content in the soil and on the microbial carbon content in the organic carbon. Typical amounts in an average Finnish agricultural soil amounts to from 100 to 350 kg/ha, preferably from 200 to 300 kg/ha of added priming carbon (pg.5, In.31 to pg. 6 ln. 3 and Table 1).
Lehtonen discloses that the priming carbon source in the fertilizer product is preferably an industrial or agricultural by-product which is accepted or will be accepted for use as a fertilizer or soil amendment (pg.6, In.25-27).
Lehtonen discloses that the nitrogen source is preferably an organic nitrogen source or ammonium nitrogen source or a combination of both. Ammonium nitrogen sources include urea and various ammonium salts and urea and ammonium containing fertilizers (pg.9, In. 1-11).
One aspect of the invention is a method for fertilizing soil comprising applying priming carbon, nitrogen and optionally other nutrients to the soil. When carbon need is high, it may be advisable to apply, e.g. 2 t/ha of carbon source separately, and then the rest in conventional time or when needed. Sometimes the nutrients may be applied together with e.g. sludge manures, which are poor in nutrients (pg 12. Ln 4-13).
The fertilizer composition is suitable to be applied in any known method such as granulates. The composition can be applied to cultivated soil (pg.12, In.20-23). In a method of manufacturing the fertilizer, the steps comprise: providing a priming carbon source and nitrogen source; and forming a dry or wet mixture of components (reading on wherein the fertilizer and sugar are mixed prior to application); and optionally drying said mixture to decrease water content of wet or moist mixture (pg.13, In. 1-9). In an embodiment, the mixture is formed into a granulated fertilizer product (Lehtonen claim 13). Granulated product is obtained by forming the mixture having suitable humidity into granulated fertilizer (pg.13, In.17-18). Granules are formed using conventional methods (pg. 13, In.19-21).
Suitable carbon sources selected from group comprising hydrolysed, various mono- and disaccharide fractions from sugar industries and the mixtures thereof (pg. 6, ln. 27-32).
Lehtonen does not appear to require the inclusion of water in their fertilizer compositions. Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, Lehtonen’s disclosure encompasses non-aqueous compositions.
Lehtonen does not appear to explicitly disclose applying their fertilizer composition simultaneous with planting a crop seed, or the sugar application rate as recited in the instant claim 16. These are known in the art as taught by Nonomura et al as evidenced by Anthony et al.
Nonomura et al teach methods for treating plants, and for enhancing the growth of plants, the methods include applying an alkyl glucoside compound to the plant (See abstract).
It is disclosed that the said alkyl glucosides function in a manner similar to conventional fertilizers, and are used to enhance growth in juvenile and mature plants, as well as cuttings and seeds. The said alkyl glucoside compounds may be applied to the plant at a location including leaves, root, seed, etc, (Col. 3, lines 49-58).
It is further disclosed that the alkyl glucoside compounds employed in the methods of the present invention may be applied to the plants using conventional application techniques. Plants nearing or at maturity may be treated at any time before and during seed development. Fruit bearing plants may be treated before or after the onset of bud or fruit formation. Improved growth occurs as a result of the exogenus application of alkyl glucoside (Col. 4, lines 58-65).
The said compositions may also advantageously include one or more conventional fertilizers, such as fertilizers containing elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, elevated carbon dioxide, etc. In order to support rapid vegetative growth above normally fertilized crops, the most highly preferred fertilizer for inclusion in methyl glucoside formulations are nitrogenous fertilizers, especially nitrate, urea, and ammonium salts (Col. 6, lines 40-60).
Nonomura et al teach that the said compositions and methods may be applied to virtually any variety of plants and fruits, including all crop plants, such as, alfalfa, barley, basil, corn, cotton, peanut, pepper, potato, rice, sesame, sorghum, soy, sweet potato, sugar beet, sugar cane, tobacco, tomato, wheat, yam, etc (Col. 2, line 62 to col. 3, line 45).
It is also disclosed that root applications by side dressing into soil near the root zone will preferably be in the range of 10 to 100 pounds per acre. Additionally, the compositions are typically applied in the amount of between about 3 gallons per acre and about 200 gallons per acre, depending upon the application method (Col.5, lines 55-60 and Col. 8, lines 59-66).
As evidenced:
Anthony et al teach composition, as a solution or dry flowable powder peptide-polysaccharide complex, used as a plant, soil, seed or seed piece treatment for commercial crops to enhance germination, emergence, root mass development, plant growth crop maturity and ultimately increase crop yield. The soils, seeds or seed pieces of agricultural or horticultural value are treated before, during, or after planting with a peptide-polysaccharide complex. Preferably, the administering is performed simultaneously with seeding of said crop (See abstract, claims 1-3 and 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined the teachings of Nonomura et al and as evidenced by Anthony et al with that of Lehtonen et al to arrive at the instant invention.
It would have been obvious to do so because Lehtonen et al teach a fertilizer composition, which comprises a carbon source (e.g., monosaccharides and disaccharides such as glucose or sucrose) and a nitrogen source (e.g., urea) used for fertilizing soil bacteria. Lehtonen’s composition is suitable for use as a fertilizer or soil amendment. Similarly, Nonomura et al teach methods and compositions for enhancing plant growth comprising an alkyl glucoside and fertilizers such as nitrogen containing compounds. While Lehtonen do not expressly disclose application of such formulation to seeds, Nonomura et al does. Also, Nonomura et al provide guidance on the amount of the said sugar compound applied to the area and crops that can benefit from such application. Additionally, as evidenced by Anthony et al, seeds treated with a crop increasing composition can be treated before, during or after cultivation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Lehtonen and as evidenced by Anthony et al with the teachings of Nonomura et al, and apply Lehtonen’s fertilizer composition as a soil amendment composition to the soil or crop seeds, including at the time of seed cultivation at a desired rate with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the advantage of assisting the seed germination and plant growth from applying the formulation directly to the seeds.
Regarding the limitation of an application rate of from 25 pounds per acre to 250 pound per acre, it is noted that Nonomura et al provide sufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the appropriate amount to achieve the goal of enhanced plant growth. Furthermore, it is held that “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the limitation of refined sugar in claims 23, the references teach applying industrial sugars, which is the same as refined sugar.
With regard to the limitation of exposing the crop to enhanced level of carbon dioxide, as stated above, this limitation is related to a natural accordance of the microflora in the soil. It is further noted that Lehtonen et al discloses this limitation by stating that “An object of this invention is to provide alternative ways of feeding soil using novel fertilization compositions (fertilizers) comprising at least carbon and nitrogen sources. Particularly the object is to provide fertilizer that enhances function of natural soil bacteria resulting in enhanced microbial activity and thereby availability of mineralized nutrients in soil and activated humus biosynthesis. Further object of the invention is a fertilizer composition for promoting biogas production and composting” (See Pages 2-3).
Thus, the claimed carbon dioxide is produced by the microflora in soil surrounding the crop seed. This is a natural occurrence and the microflora of the soil will naturally produce an amount of carbon dioxide. Thus, the teachings of the art where sugar is applied to the field would result in the same phenomena.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtonen et al (WO 2013/128080) in view of Nonomura et al (5,958,104) as evidenced by Anthony et al (WO 02058466), and in further view of Curtis (Food Product Design; of record) and as evidenced by Cargill (A world of sugar solutions; of record).
Applicant’s claims are set forth above and incorporated herein.
Applicant further claims wherein the refined sucrose is granulated white sugar.
The combined teachings of Lehtonen et al and Nonomura et al as evidenced by Anthony et al, and the motivation for their combination as they apply to claims 16, 19-21, 23-25, 27 and 57 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
The combined teachings of Lehtonen et al and Nonomura et al do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the refined sucrose is granulated white sugar. Curtis is relied upon for this disclosure as evidenced by Cargill.
Curtis is relied upon for the disclosure of known sugars. Glucose, fructose, and galactose are common monosaccharides. Sucrose, lactose, and maltose are common disaccharides (pg.3, para.2). Curtis discloses that sugar can come in various other guises, such as granulated white sugar (pg.3, para.4).
As evidenced by Cargill, granulated white sugar is sugar having a sucrose content of not less than 99.85% (pg.1, Granulated sugar).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made given the combined teachings of Nonomura et al as evidenced by Anthony et al and Lehtonen et al to have looked in the art for more specific sugars as taught by Curtis et al as evidenced by Cargill to arrive at the instant invention.
It would have been obvious to do so because Lehtonen et al teach a fertilizer composition, which comprises a carbon source (e.g., monosaccharides and disaccharides) and a nitrogen source and Nonomura et al teach similar compositions and methods of applying the said compositions to crop seeds to enhance plant growth. Furthermore, Lehtonen discloses that sucrose is among the suitable sugars for the composition. In light of Curtis’s disclosure (evidenced by Cargill) that granulated white sugar is sugar having a sucrose content of not less than 99.85%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further incorporate Curtis et al’s sugars into the fertilizer compositions of the combined references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because granulated white sugar is sugar having a sucrose content of not less than 99.85%, and Lehtonen discloses sucrose as a suitable sugar to use in the composition.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtonen et al (WO 2013/128080) in view of Nonomura et al (5,958,104) and as evidenced by Anthony et al (WO 02058466), as applied to claims 16, 19-21, 23-25, 27-29, and 57, further in view of Lynch et al (US 2004/0009878).
Applicant’s claims are set forth above and incorporated herein.
Applicant further claims wherein the fertilizer and sugar are physically or chemically adhered together prior to application.
The combined teachings of Lehtonen et al and Nonomura et al and the motivation for their combination as they apply to claims 16, 19-21, 23-25, 27 and 57 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
The combined teachings of Lehtonen et al and Nonomura et al do not appear to explicitly disclose that the fertilizer and sugar are physically or chemically adhered together prior to application. Lynch is relied upon for this disclosure.
Lynch et al disclose a water-dispersible particle that disperses into more than 100 pieces upon contact with water. The particles comprise a bioavailable nitrogen containing ingredient, such as urea (fertilizer), and a binder, such as glucose or sucrose (para.0009-001 1, 0015, 0017; Lynch claims 1, 5, 11).
The process of making the water-dispersible particle comprises the steps of mechanically aggregating into a pellet: a nitrogen-containing ingredient bioavailable to a targeted desirable organism and a binder; and drying the pellet (Lynch claim 35). In a preferred embodiment, the nitrogen-containing ingredient are mechanically aggregated into pellets in a pan-granulator in the presence of a binder. The binder is sprayed into the pan granulated with the nitrogen-containing ingredient (para.0022-0024). In light of Lynch’s disclosure that each pellet comprises both the nitrogen-containing ingredient and binder aggregated together, and Lynch’s disclosure of the production method of water-dispersible particles, the nitrogen-containing ingredient (e.g., urea, which reads on a fertilizer) and binder (e.g., glucose or sucrose) appear to be physically adhered together prior to application.
Lynch discloses that the pellets, when handled without coming into contact with water, have physical characteristics similar to existing controlled release nitrogen granules, allowing broadcast application. Following application, the pellets disperse on contact with moisture from the treated area itself, from irrigation or from natural precipitation. The pellets also provide even delivery of active agents to target plants and organisms over a large area (para.0007-0008).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made given the combined teachings of Nonomura et al as evidenced by Anthony et al and Lehtonen et al to have looked in the art for more specific combination of the agents as taught by Lynch et al to arrive at the instant invention.
It would have been obvious to do so because Lehtonen et al teach a fertilizer composition, which comprises a carbon source (e.g., monosaccharides and disaccharides) and a nitrogen source and Nonomura et al teach similar compositions. As discussed above, Lehtonen discloses that their fertilizer compositions comprising a carbon source (e.g., glucose or sucrose) and a source of nitrogen (e.g., urea) may be administered to the soil as a granulated product. In light of the advantages of Lynch’s water-dispersible particles comprising a bioavailable nitrogen containing ingredient (e.g., urea) and a binder (e.g., glucose or sucrose), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Lehtonen et al and Nonomura et al with the teachings of Lynch, and form Lehtonen’s compositions as water-dispersible pellets as disclosed by Lynch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the advantages disclosed by Lynch, such as providing an even delivery of the carbon source and nitrogen source in Lehtonen’s composition and reducing and/or preventing wastage of the components of the pellets by having more of the ingredients reach their intended targets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Lynch and Lehtonen are directed to agricultural products applied to the soil, and Lynch discloses a method of production for pellets comprising the ingredients used in Lehtonen’s composition.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that “Lehtonen … “does not appear to explicitly disclose applying their fertilizer composition simultaneous with planting a crop seed, or the sugar application rate as recited in the instant claim 16.” ….. The Applicant respectfully asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable basis to even consider the disclosure of Nonomura as it has no relevance to the application of sugar as presently claimed” (See Remarks, page 7).
This argument is also not convincing. While Lehtonen et al lack an express teaching on application of the agent to the seeds simultaneous with planting a crop seed, this method is well known in the art as taught by Nonomura et al and as evidenced by Anthony et al. Nonomoura et al clearly teach that the agent/composition to improve crop yield can be administered to the seeds at the time of planting. Additionally, Anthony et al teach that a crop increasing composition may be applied to a crop seed before during or after cultivation. Anthony et al teach that one of the preferred methods is simultaneously with seeding of the crop.
Applicant also argues that “Nonomura is expressly directed to enhancing plant growth and crop yield by applying compositions of alkyl glucosides that penetrate into the photosynthetic plant and provide a substrate for growth. See Nonomura at Col. 3, Lines 49-60. Throughout the application, Nonomura expressly describes differences between the disclosed alkyl glucosides and sugars, with these differences being fundamental to the entire invention of Nonomura. Specifically, Nonomora states:
“Sugar has been applied to plants for tissue culture and for experimental purposes in the laboratory, but field application to plants is impractical. One of the primary limitations preventing crop application is that commonly applied sugars such as sucrose are not efficiently transported across plant cell membranes.” See Nonomura at Col. 1, Lines 9-14” (See Remarks, page 7).
The above argument is not found convincing. As the rejection shows, the combination of references renders the claimed invention obvious. It is noted that Nonomura et al is the secondary reference and is not relied upon for rendering the entire claim obvious. That is, Lehtonen et al, the primary reference teach application of a non-aqueous formulation comprising sugars and other fertilizing compounds to the soil for improving plant growth. Lehtonen reference teach application of the said formulations to soil, and Nonomura et al clearly teach that the said formulations (i.e. fertilizers comprising sugars) can be applied to seeds or plants for enhanced growth and that the plants may be treated at any time before and during seed development. Additionally, as evidenced by Anthony et al, it is well known in the art to apply a crop yield increasing compound or composition to the seeds or plants or soil, before, during or after cultivation. Thus, from all references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deduced that the application to seeds before or simultaneous with seed planting would be advantageous.
Furthermore, it is noted that applying to soil encompasses all the times, including at the time of planting crop seeds. That is the recitations of Lehtonen and Nonomura, would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the compositions to the soil at any time during the planting would be beneficial.
Applicant also argues that Nonomoura’s application rates are for alkyl glucoside composition, not sugar (See Remarks, page 8).
The above argument is not persuasive. The Lehtonen reference provides guidance on the amounts of the priming carbon, i.e. the sugar content of the composition in both percentages of the composition and in application rate to the soil. It is disclosed that the typical amounts in an average Finnish agricultural soil amounts to from 100 to 350 kg/ha, preferably from 200 to 300 kg/ha of added priming carbon. It is noted that 100 kg/ha is equivalent to 89 Ib/ac, which meets the claimed range. The profred range includes 200 Kg/ha which is equivalent to 178 Ib/ ac. While the upper limits of the disclosed ranges are outside of the claimed range, there is sufficient overlap. Contrary to Applicant’s interpretation of the teaching, there is no need for modification of Lehtonen et al’s reference, but to select part of the recited range.
In this regard, See MPEP § 2144.05 [R-5] states that, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Additionally, regarding the application rate, it is also noted that such limitations are not support for patentability as one of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of deciding on the suitable ranges, that is optimization of ranges is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant argues that Anthony does not teach filed application rates (See Remarks, page 8).
This argument is not sufficient to overcome the rejection. Anthony reference is provided as evidence that application of sugars to seeds at the time of planting is known. It was not relied upon for teaching application rate.
Applicant’s arguments that secondary references (Curtis et al and Cargill) do not remedy this deficiency is similarly unpersuasive.
Thus, all the claimed limitations have been met by the combination of prior art references as stated above.
While Applicant argues that the combination of references would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention, the rejections of record and the response to arguments have clearly shown that indeed one of ordinary skill in the art having possession of the references would have readily envisioned that fertilizer formulations comprising sugars are successfully applied to seeds at the time of planting or plants after germination which would improve plant growth and crop yield.
The claims remain rejected as there is no evidence of an inventive step.
In Conclusion:
Claims 16, 18-21, 23-25, 27-29 and 57-58 are rejected.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mina Haghighatian whose telephone number is (571)272-0615. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5 EST.
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, Sue X. Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. 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.
/Mina Haghighatian/
Mina Haghighatian
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1616