DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 15/898,466 filed 17 February 2018, which is a continuation of application number 14/265,051 filed 28 April 2014, which claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 61/816,636. Claims 69-70, 72-74, 76, 80-83, 85-86, and 92-96 are pending. Claims 1-68, 71, 75, 77-79, 84, and 87-91 are canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 8 January 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 69-70, 72-74, 78-82, 85-86, and 91-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinecke (US Patent No. 5,738,642) (Heinecke) in view of Potter (US Patent No. 4,595,001) (Potter) and Rees (US Patent No. 3,355,319) (Rees).
Regarding instant claims 69 and 92-96:
Heinecke teaches a multi-layered assembly (adhesive composite, Col. 2, line 64) comprising: a carrier having opposed sides (Col. 2, line 66); a heat sealable layer (polyethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer coating, Col. 6, lines 14-15) disposed on at least a portion of one of said sides of the carrier (Kraft paper, Col. 6, line15) , and a polymeric film having opposed sides (backing, Col. 2, line 67; Col. 4, lines 39-40) in at least partial contact with said heat sealable layer (carrier, Col. 3, lines 1-5). Heinecke further teaches the polymeric film comprises polyurethane (Col. 5, lines 1-2) and the assembly is a dressing (Abstract).
Heinecke teaches that the carrier layer is releasably attached to and covering at least a portion of the backing, wherein said carrier is nonpermanently heat-sealed to the backing (col. 3, lines 24-39).
Heinecke teaches that the carrier material, which encompasses the heat sealable layer, is not limited (col. 6, lines 4-15).
Heinecke discloses exemplary structures (i.e., FIG. 2A and FIG. 3) which comprise continuous perimeter portions.
Heinecke fails to teach wherein the polyurethane is at least one of an aliphatic polyether urethane, a poly (ether ester) block copolymer, or a poly (ether ester) block terpolymer.
However, Potter teaches a dressing (Abstract) comprising a film which carries an adhesive layer (Abstract). Potter teaches that said films are inclusive of polyurethanes and polyether polyester block copolymers as these are highly conformable film materials (Col. 2, lines 26-34). This disclosure is construed to encompass a polyurethane composed of polyurethane blocks and polyether polyester blocks.
Potter further teaches the film should be transparent and capable of being self-supporting and that that polyether polyurethanes are particularly suitable for use in the formation of such films (Col. 2, lines 51-59). Potter additionally teaches the polyether polyurethane is an aliphatic polyether urethane (Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 26).
Potter is construed to encompass an embodied film composed of only a polyurethane/polyester polyether block copolymer (i.e., 100 percent of the polymeric film is a polyurethane).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her to use the aliphatic polyurethane of Potter as the polyurethane desired by Heinecke as Potter teaches that said aliphatic polyurethane is suitable for a film dressing due to its transparency and ability to be self-supporting.
Heinecke further fails to teach the heat sealable layer consists of a partially salt neutralized acrylic acid based ionomer.
However, Rees teaches heat-sealable films (Abstract) that consists of a partially salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid based ionomer (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 60-65; Col. 3, lines 1-5; Col. 12, lines 45-49). Rees further teaches the broad heat sealing temperature range and particularly the ability of the ionic copolymer coated film to be sealed at low temperatures as well as at higher temperatures makes the ionic copolymer well suited for use on films to applied in high speed wrapping and packaging operations (Col. 13, lines 1-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the partially salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid base ionomer of Rees as the heat sealable layer in Heinecke because said heat sealable layer is appropriate for packaging and has a broad heat sealing temperature range.
As to the thickness of heat sealable layer, Heinecke teaches that the carrier layer comprising the heat-sealable coating is substantially more rigid that the backing to prevent the backing from wrinkling during application (col. 6, lines 4-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the rigidity of the carrier layer is a function of its physical properties inclusive of its thickness.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the thickness of the heat sealable layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the rigidity of the carrier layer is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the carrier layer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of (component being optimized) in (reference name) to obtain the desired (property) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Heinecke fails to teach wherein said peel force is in a range of about 200 grams/inch to about 500 grams/inch.
However, Heinecke teaches the peel force is 142 g/in (Table 1, line 6). Heinecke additionally teaches that the strength of the heat sealing bonds, and therefore the required peel strength to remove the heat seal layer, is controlled by adjusting the temperature which the materials are heated and by adjusting the duration of the heating process (Col. 10, lines 36-38).
Therefore, the exact peel force of the heat seal is deemed to be a result effective variable with regard to the application, i.e. desired peel force. It would require routine experimentation to determine the optimum value of a result effective variable, such as a peel force in a range of about 200-500 g/in, in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed peel force. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Heinecke to adjust the temperature which the materials are heated and the duration of the heating process in order to obtain the desired peel strength for a specific application.
Alternatively, the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to Applicant’s invention (i.e., a polymeric film comprising an aliphatic polyether polyurethane releasably sealed to a carrier via a heat sealable layer consisting of a partially salt neutralized acrylic acid based ionomer). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the substantially identical embodiment encompassed by the prior art would necessarily have the same properties as the claimed invention (i.e., the peel force within the claimed range).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
As to the claimed peel force variations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the peel force should vary by less than 25% when the assembly of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is exposed to a temperature of about 50°C for 24 hours and the peel force should vary by less than 25% after the assembly of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is subjected to ethylene oxide sterilization or by less than 10% after the assembly of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is subjected to gamma ray sterilization, respectively, in order to maintain the same or about the same peel force from the time the product is produced to the time the product is used, through handling, storage, transportation, and sterilization.
Furthermore, the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to Applicant’s invention (i.e., a polymeric film comprising an aliphatic polyether polyurethane releasably sealed to a carrier via a heat sealable layer consisting of a partially salt neutralized acrylic acid based ionomer). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the substantially identical embodiment encompassed by the prior art would necessarily have the same properties as the claimed invention (i.e., the peel force variations of the claims).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding instant claim 70:
Heinecke teaches wherein the polymeric film comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive layer disposed on a side thereof opposed to the side that is in at least partial contact with said heat sealable layer (Col. 6, line 66 – Col. 7, line 5).
Heinecke teaches further comprising a protective release liner disposed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Col. 7, lines 5-6).
Regarding instant claim 72:
Rees teaches wherein said partially salt neutralized ionomer exhibits a salt neutralization level in a range of 5% to 70% (55%, Col. 12, lines 45-49).
Regarding instant claim 73:
Rees teaches wherein said salt comprises any of a sodium, a potassium, a magnesium, a calcium, or a zinc salt (Col. 6, lines 9-13).
Regarding instant claim 74:
Rees teaches wherein said partially salt neutralized ionomer comprises a partially salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid copolymer having a 55% degree of neutralization (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 60-65; Col. 3, lines 1-5; Col. 12, lines 45-49).
Regarding instant claims 80-81 and 86:
Heinecke teaches a multi-layered assembly (adhesive composite, Col. 2, line 64) comprising: a carrier having opposed sides (Col. 2, line 66); a heat sealable layer (polyethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer coating, Col. 6, lines 14-15) disposed on at least a portion of one of said sides of the carrier (Kraft paper, Col. 6, line15) , and a polymeric film having opposed sides (backing, Col. 2, line 67; Col. 4, lines 39-40) in at least partial contact with said heat sealable layer (carrier, Col. 3, lines 1-5). Heinecke further teaches the polymeric film comprises polyurethane (Col. 5, lines 1-2) and the assembly is a dressing (Abstract).
Heinecke teaches that the carrier layer is releasably attached to and covering at least a portion of the backing, wherein said carrier is nonpermanently heat-sealed to the backing (col. 3, lines 24-39).
Heinecke teaches that the carrier material, which encompasses the heat sealable layer, is not limited (col. 6, lines 4-15).
Heinecke discloses exemplary structures (i.e., FIG. 2A and FIG. 3) which comprise continuous perimeter portions.
Heinecke fails to teach wherein the polyurethane is at least one of an aliphatic polyether urethane, a poly (ether ester) block copolymer, or a poly (ether ester) block terpolymer.
However, Potter teaches a dressing (Abstract) comprising a film which carries an adhesive layer (Abstract). Potter teaches that said films are inclusive of polyurethanes and polyether polyester block copolymers as these are highly conformable film materials (Col. 2, lines 26-34). This disclosure is construed to encompass a polyurethane composed of polyurethane blocks and polyether polyester blocks.
Potter further teaches the film should be transparent and capable of being self-supporting and that that polyether polyurethanes are particularly suitable for use in the formation of such films (Col. 2, lines 51-59). Potter additionally teaches the polyether polyurethane is an aliphatic polyether urethane (Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 26).
Potter is construed to encompass an embodied film composed of only a polyurethane/polyester polyether block copolymer (i.e., 100 percent of the polymeric film is a polyurethane).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her to use the aliphatic polyurethane of Potter as the polyurethane desired by Heinecke as Potter teaches that said aliphatic polyurethane is suitable for a film dressing due to its transparency and ability to be self-supporting.
Heinecke further fails to teach the heat sealable layer consists of a partially salt neutralized acrylic acid based ionomer.
However, Rees teaches heat-sealable films (Abstract) that consists of a partially salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid based ionomer (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 60-65; Col. 3, lines 1-5; Col. 12, lines 45-49). Rees further teaches the broad heat sealing temperature range and particularly the ability of the ionic copolymer coated film to be sealed at low temperatures as well as at higher temperatures makes the ionic copolymer well suited for use on films to applied in high speed wrapping and packaging operations (Col. 13, lines 1-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the partially salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid base ionomer of Rees as the heat sealable layer in Heinecke because said heat sealable layer is appropriate for packaging and has a broad heat sealing temperature range.
As to the thickness of heat sealable layer, Heinecke teaches that the carrier layer comprising the heat-sealable coating is substantially more rigid that the backing to prevent the backing from wrinkling during application (col. 6, lines 4-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the rigidity of the carrier layer is a function of its physical properties inclusive of its thickness.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the thickness of the heat sealable layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the rigidity of the carrier layer is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the carrier layer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of (component being optimized) in (reference name) to obtain the desired (property) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Heinecke fails to teach wherein said peel force is in a range of about 200 grams/inch to about 500 grams/inch.
However, Heinecke teaches the peel force is 142 g/in (Table 1, line 6). Heinecke additionally teaches that the strength of the heat sealing bonds, and therefore the required peel strength to remove the heat seal layer, is controlled by adjusting the temperature which the materials are heated and by adjusting the duration of the heating process (Col. 10, lines 36-38).
Therefore, the exact peel force of the heat seal is deemed to be a result effective variable with regard to the application, i.e. desired peel force. It would require routine experimentation to determine the optimum value of a result effective variable, such as a peel force in a range of about 200-500 g/in, in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed peel force. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Heinecke to adjust the temperature which the materials are heated and the duration of the heating process in order to obtain the desired peel strength for a specific application.
Further, the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to Applicant’s invention (i.e., a polymeric film comprising an aliphatic polyether polyurethane releasably sealed to a carrier via a heat sealable layer consisting of a partially salt neutralized acrylic acid based ionomer). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the substantially identical embodiment encompassed by the prior art would necessarily have the same properties as the claimed invention (i.e., the peel force within the claimed range).
Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees fails to teach a collection of multi-layered assemblies wherein the variation in peel force properties recited by the claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have appreciated that the variation in peel force among a collection of assemblies of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is a quality control issue. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the variation in peel force among a collection of assemblies of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees as measured by 3 times the standard deviation as a percent of the average peel force be less than 30% in order to ensure the quality of the product and to ensure that the end user had to exert the same or substantially the same peel force with each assembly used.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the peel force should vary by less than 25% when the assembly of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is exposed to a temperature of about 50°C for 24 hours and the peel force should vary by less than 25% after the assembly of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is subjected to ethylene oxide sterilization or by less than 10% after the assembly of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees is subjected to gamma ray sterilization, respectively, in order to maintain the same or about the same peel force from the time the product is produced to the time the product is used, through handling, storage, transportation, and sterilization.
Furthermore, the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to Applicant’s invention (i.e., a polymeric film comprising an aliphatic polyether polyurethane releasably sealed to a carrier via a heat sealable layer consisting of a partially salt neutralized acrylic acid based ionomer). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the substantially identical embodiment encompassed by the prior art would necessarily have the same properties as the claimed invention (i.e., the peel force variations of the claims).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Potter and Rees with Heinecke to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 82:
Rees teaches wherein said partially salt neutralized ionomer comprises a partially salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 60-65; Col. 3, lines 1-5; Col. 12, lines 45-49).
Regarding instant claims 85:
Rees teaches that a noticeable improvement in the solid state properties of the partially neutralized composition is observed only after 10 percent of the acid groups have been neutralized (col. 4, line 74 to col. 5, line 3). In other words, Rees teaches that the degree of neutralization of the partially neutralized composition is at least 10 percent, which overlaps the range recited by the claims; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees as applied to claim 69-70 above, and further in view of MacKnight (“Properties of Ethylene-Methacrylic Acid Copolymers and Their Sodium Salts”) (MacKnight).
Regarding instant claim 76:
Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees discloses the assembly comprising a polymeric film and pressure-sensitive adhesive as cited in the rejection of claims 69-70, above.
Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees fails to teach wherein said heat sealable layer exhibits an FTIR spectrum exhibiting a peak at about 1700 cm-1 and a peak in the range of about 1500 to about 1560 cm-1. Further, Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees fails to teach wherein ratio of the height of the peak at about 1700 cm-1 to the height of the peak in the range of about 1500 to about 1560 cm-1 is in a range from about 20 to about 0.5.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have appreciated that FTIR spectrum peaks are a result of the composition of the material. The heat sealable layer of Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees, comprising a sodium salt neutralized ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (as discussed above), would exhibit a peak at about 1700 cm-1 and a peak in the range of about 1500 to about 1560 cm-1 as evidenced by MacKnight (Fig. 1).
Further, MacKnight teaches that the ratio of the height of the peak at about 1700 cm-1 to the height of the peak in the range of about 1500 to about 1560 cm-1 depends on the degree of salt neutralization (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the heat sealing layer, with a salt neutralization of 55% (as discussed above), in Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees would have a ratio of the height of the peak at about 1700 cm-1 to the height of the peak in the range of about 1500 to about 1560 cm-1 depends on the degree of salt neutralization as taught by MacKnight.
Claim 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees, as applied to claims 69 and 80, as cited above, and further in view of Dollase et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0052435 A1) (Dollase).
Regarding instant claim 83:
Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees disclose the multi-layered assemblies as cited in the rejection of claim 69, above.
Heinecke further discloses an optional low adhesion layer <13> in contact with the carrier layer <170> (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 6).
Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees does not explicitly disclose a release agent disposed on the surface of the carrier opposite the heat sealable layer.
However, Dollase teaches that it is readily recognized in the art that carriers acting as release liners comprise release coatings on one or both sides of the carrier (paragraphs [0072-0074]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art references before him or her, to include an additional release coating on the carrier layer of Heinecke on the side opposite the low adhesion layer. The motivation for doing so would have been that Dollase teaches that application of release layers on both sides of a carrier film is a known technique in the art used to tailor a release liner for its intended use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dollase with Heinecke in view of Potter and Rees to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of record are fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant submits that the prior art references, neither alone nor in combination, disclose or suggest the claimed structure. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed peel force variation is an unexpectedly discovered advantage of the claimed structure and composition. Applicant cites portions of their original disclosure showing that those embodiments encompassed by the scope of the claims exhibit the claimed properties.
Applicant’s arguments as to unexpected results are unpersuasive. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP §716.02(d). In the instant case, Applicant has not provided evidence commensurate in scope to support the conclusory statement that claimed peel force variation is an unexpectedly discovered advantage of the claimed structure and composition. Though Applicant points to those portions of their original disclosure showing that those embodiments encompassed by the scope of the claims exhibit the claimed properties, such narrow embodiments do not clearly represent the entirety of the broader scope of the claims. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine if the allegedly unexpected results are exhibited by the scope of the claims.
Further, Applicant has not persuasively shown that the structure and composition of the prior art does not encompass embodiments that exhibit the same properties touted by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 04/08/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights