VDETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 23, 2026 is is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the claims have been amended to recite that each of the first, second, third and fourth sublenghts [sic] are less than the width of the rectangular shape of the package. This limitation does not appear to be supported by the originally filed specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 33 of the claim recites “sublenghts” This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 23 of the claim recites “sublenghts” This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the width of the rectangular shape of the package" in lines 33 and 23, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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 1-3, 6, 11-14, 17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/096865 (as translated by US 2019/0254890) in view of Young et al. (US 5,147,345) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0353354).
With reference to claims 1 and 3, WO 2018/096865 (hereinafter “Yonaha”) discloses a product comprising a feminine hygiene pad (1) provided in a folded configuration within an individualized package (figure 5d), the pad comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (3) and a liquid impermeable backsheet (2), and an absorbent core (4) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet [0045] wherein the pad has a length no greater than 32 cm [0094];
wherein the pad is provided in a folded configuration wherein the pad is folded over on itself along at least three (L1, L2, L3) lateral fold lines defining at least three folds (figures 5C-5D), which divide the length into at least first, second, third and fourth sublengths of the pad which in the folded configuration overlie or underlie each other directly or indirectly (figures 5C-5D);
the first sublength (area above L3) being proximate a forward end of the pad, the second sublength (area above L2) being adjacent the first sublength, the third sublength (area above L1) being adjacent the second sublength, and the fourth sublength (area below L1) being adjacent the third sublength at a forward portion of the fourth sublength, and proximate a rearward end of the pad at a rearward portion of the fourth sublength (figure 5A);
each of the first, second, third and fourth sublengths are approximately equal in length as set forth in [0093-0094] and [0218-220];
wherein the topsheet lies to the inside of each of the three folds and the backsheet lies to the outside of each of the three folds (figures 5C-5D);
wherein the pad in the folded configuration has a singularized main fold nose (see annotated figure 5D below);
wherein the pad in the folded configuration is folded separately of the package [0126] and is contained within the package (see figures),
wherein the pad is oriented within the package such that the singularized main fold nose is proximate an opening of the package (see figure 5E and [0214] which discusses providing the packaging sheet with a sealing tape; the examiner contends that any portion of the pad within the package including the singularized main fold nose may considered to be proximate an opening and/or the sealing tape of the package). This opening is also an opening which would expose the underlying pad.
The package is also provided in a rectangular shape as shown in figures 5A-5B. Each of the sublengths are shown as being less than the width of the rectangular shape of the package as shown in at least figure 5B where each of the sublengths are narrower than the width of the package
The difference between Yonaha and claims 1 and 3 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent layer comprises a continuous section of resilient polymeric open-celled foam (HIPE) material, that package is configured to provide an access opening to expose the pad and that the package has an aspect ratio of height to width of 0.45 to 0.85.
PNG
media_image1.png
850
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young et al. (hereinafter “Young”) teaches an analogous absorbent article (abstract) wherein the absorbent layer comprises a continuous section of resilient polymeric open-celled foam (i.e, HIPE foam) (cl. 3) as set forth in col. 3, lines 23-34. The absorbent layer also includes a first sublayer having a first average cell size, and a second sublayer, in contact with the first sublayer (cl. 4) having a second average cell size smaller than the first average cell size (col. 7, lines 1-6; col. 22, lines 45-49) wherein the first sublayer is disposed between the topsheet and the second sublayer, and the second sublayer is disposed between the first sublayer and the backsheet as shown in figures 2 and 7-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the absorbent layer of Yonaha with the specific open-celled foam material layers as taught by Thompson in order to provide the article with the desired level of fluid transfer/transport as taught by Young in col. 2, lines 54-59.
Additionally, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) also teaches an analogous personal care article packaging system that allows for individual, separately folded absorbent articles to be contained within a band-fastened package (abstract). The package comprises polymeric film [0038] and is configured to provide an access opening exposing the pad as shown in figure 1B. Lee also teaches that the packaging may be rectangular shaped [0060] and include a height (L1) of 70 mm and a width (W1) of 120mm, thereby providing an aspect ratio of 0.58.
Lee also teaches the pad in the folded configuration has a lateral fold disposed within the package with the fold proximate the access opening as shown in figure 1A where the fold (i.e., fold shown at top of article) is proximate the access opening (area near element 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Yonaha modified with the packaging as taught by Lee in order to provide a consumer with portable and discrete usage of the system as taught by Lee in [0001] and in [0084].
As to claim 2, Yonaha teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Yonaha and claim 2 is the provision that the pad has total absorption capacity, and the polymeric foam material provides at least 75% of the total absorption capacity.
Young teaches an analogous personal care article wherein the absorbent layer comprises a HIPE foam that may have a total absorbent capacity that may be varied as set forth in col. 16, lines 8-53.
The manner in which the total absorption capacity of the pad and foam is measured (i.e., together or separately) is considered as a product by process limitation which does not provide a patentable distinction between the claimed invention in view of the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the absorbent layer of Yonaha with the desired amount of open-celled foam material as taught by Hammons in order to provide the desired fluid handling and/or absorbency characteristics as taught by Young in col. 15, line 60 to col. 16, line 53.
With reference to claims 6 and 14, see the rejection of claim 1 where Lee is introduced to teach the specific access opening.
Yonaha discloses a package comprising an envelope structure having two oppositely-disposed longitudinal side edges, an opening edge and a flap edge, the film being folded into the envelope structure comprising two envelope side edges corresponding to the longitudinal side edges, a first lateral fold forming the film into a pocket structure formed in part by the opening edge, and a second lateral fold forming a flap of the film extending from a second lateral fold line, the flap being sized and configured to overlie the opening edge and close the envelope about the pad, the film being joined to itself to form seams (shown along left and right longitudinal side edges) along the respective longitudinal side edges and envelope side edges to close respective sides of the envelope structure, the envelope structure also being provided with a closure element (shown as tab at opening edge) to releasably hold the flap in a closed position and retain the pad within the envelope as set forth in figure 5E.
With reference to claim 11, see the rejection of claims 1 and 7.
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 17, Yonaha discloses a product wherein the backsheet (4) and topsheet (3)are separate and discrete from the polymeric film (18) as shown in the figures.
With reference to claim 19, Yonaha discloses a product wherein the folded configuration is a book jacket fold configuration as shown in figure 5E.
As to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1 where Lee teaches an analogous personal care article packaging system that allows for individual, separately folded absorbent articles to be contained within a band-fastened package (abstract). The package comprises polymeric film [0038] and is configured to provide an access opening exposing the pad as shown in figure 1B.
While Lee does not teach an edge that is partially cut away, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the access opening as taught by Lee as desired in order to provide a consumer with convenient access to portable packaging that will store multiple articles as taught by Lee in [0001].
Additionally, the substitution of one type of access opening for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the general teaching of an access opening has been set forth by the prior art and the purpose and function of the access opening will remain unchanged with a different design.
As to claim 21, Yonaha modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Yonaha and claim 21 is the provision that the absorbent layer includes a plurality of perforations extending at least partially through a z-direction depth of the layer.
Young teaches an analogous absorbent article including the specific layers and material claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the absorbent layer of Yonaha with the specific open-celled foam material layers as taught by Thompson in order to provide the article with the desired level of fluid transfer/transport as taught by Young in col. 2, lines 54-59.
Additionally, with respect to the inclusion of a plurality of perforations extending at least partially through a z-direction depth of the absorbent layer, Young also discloses an absorbent layer including a plurality of perforations extending at least partially through a z-direction depth of the absorbent layer through the incorporation of Thompson (US 3,929,135) in col. 5, lines 9-15.
Thompson discloses an absorbent layer including a plurality of perforations (26) extending at least partially through a z-direction depth of the absorbent layer (23) as set forth in col. 8, lines 23-34 and as shown in figure 4.
As to claim 22, Yonaha teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Yonaha and claim 22 is the provision that the first sublayer further has a first number of cells and a first density of cells, and wherein the second sublayer further has a second number of cells greater than the first number of cells and a second density of cells greater than the first density of cells.
Young teaches an analogous absorbent article having a first sublayer including a first number of cells and a first density of cells (col. 7, lines 1-6), and wherein the second sublayer further has a second number of cells greater than the first number of cells and a second density of cells greater than the first density of cells as set forth in col. 21, lines 39-55. Young also recognizes that the density of the second sublayer may be adjusted as desired as set forth in col. 21, lines 45-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the absorbent layer of Yonaha with the specific open-celled foam material layers as taught by Thompson in order to provide the article with the desired level of fluid transfer/transport as taught by Young in col. 2, lines 54-59.
With respect to claim 23, see the rejection of claim 22 where Young provides the first and second sublayer cells and respective density.
The claim suggests that the inclusion of such parameters will ultimately result in the recited compressibility and/or tensile strength.
Nevertheless, Young teaches that the compressibility and/or tensile strength of the layers are both important mechanical features of the layers that can be modified to provide the desired product as set forth in col. 23, line 5 to col. 26, line 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the absorbent layer of Yonaha with the desired mechanical features as taught by Thompson in order to provide the article with the desired structural properties to provide effective fluid handling and retention as taught by Young in col. 5, lines 53-68 and in col. 18, lines 15-40.
With reference to claim 24, see the rejection of claim 1.
Yonaha provides a singularized main fold nose as shown in annotated figure 5D above. The examiner considers that no proximate folded or end edges are present as shown in figure 5D in view of [0206-0210] where Yonaha explains that the absorbent article is folding along first (L1) and second (L2) fold lines. In this case, the outside edge of the article that extends past the wrapper (18) in figure 5B is folded alone along fold line (L1) as discussed in [0206] and as shown in figure 5C. The article is then folded again along fold line (L2) as shown in figure 5D thereby providing a singularized main fold nose which has no proximate folded or end edges present as the folded/end edges are encompassed by L1. It is also noted the folding as disclosed by Yonaha in figure 5D is similar to that of figure 4A of the instant specification with an exposed singularized main fold nose (214). The instant specification sets forth on page 21, lines 19-22 that such a configuration results in the limitations as set forth in claim 24.
As to claim 25, see the rejection of claims 1 and 24. See also [0204-0210] and figures 5B-5D.
The difference between Yonaha and claim 25 is the provision that the second, third and fourth sublengths is folded about a first fold of the three folds adjacent a front end of the pad.
Yonaha discloses in [0210] that the article is folded from the front side along the third fold line (i.e., the top panel is folded down over the second, third and fourth sublengths along the fold line as opposed to the sublengths being folded upward along the fold) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to fold the sublengths up as opposed to folding the top panel down because either manner of folding results in the same structure capable of performing the same duty. There does not appear to be any additional benefit to folding the top panel down vs. folding the bottom panels up. The end structure remains the same and would be expected to perform identically to that claimed.
As to claim 26, see the rejection of claims 1 and 24-25. See also [0204-0210] and figures 5B-5D.
The difference between Yonaha and claim 26 is the provision that the folded configuration is a book fold configuration.
Yonaha discloses and article that includes four sublengths folded along three fold lines as claimed as discussed in [0204-0210].
While Yonaha does not explicitly recite a book fold configuration, the examiner contends that the article of Yonaha is fully capable of being folded as desired and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to fold the article as desired since the folding does not appear to result in a structure that would perform any differently. Yonaha provides a fold similar to the roll fold configuration as set forth in the rejection of claim 25. According to the instant specification, both the roll fold configuration and the book jacket fold configuration both result in the same structure capable of performing the same duty (see page 21, lines 19-24). There does not appear to be any additional benefit to utilizing a book jacket fold configuration instead of a roll fold configuration. Since Yonaha provides a structure almost identical to the roll fold configuration as explained in the rejection of claim 25, one could reasonably presume that the end structure remains the same and would be expected to perform identically to that claimed.
Claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/096865 (as translated by US 2019/0254890) in view of Young et al. (US 5,147,345) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0353354) and further in view of WO 2007/086034.
With reference to claims 8 and 9 , Yonaha teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Yonaha and claims 8 and 9 is the provision that the polymeric film has an inner surface and an outer surface corresponding to respective inner and outer surfaces of the package, the inner surface has a first visible color or design attribute, the pad has an outer pad surface visible immediately after the package is first opened, the outer pad surface having a second visible color or design attribute, and the second visible color or design attribute is visually distinguishable from the first visible color or design attribute by a delta E* of at least 3.5 (cl. 9).
WO 2007/086034 (hereinafter “Shimizu”) teaches an analogous personal care article packaging system wherein the polymeric film of the wrapper (page 1, line 30) has an inner surface and an outer surface corresponding to respective inner and outer surfaces of the package, the inner surface has a first visible color or design attribute (page 2, lines 19-20), the pad has an outer pad surface visible immediately after the package is first opened, the outer pad surface having a second visible color or design attribute (page 1, lines 22-23), and the second visible color or design attribute is visually distinguishable from the first visible color or design attribute as set forth on page 2, liens 24-25. The hue angle difference between the first coloration and the second coloration is between 0 and 90 (cl. 9) as set forth on page 6, lines 31-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the packaging of Yonaha with the color variations as taught by Shimizu in order to provide a consumer with esthetic benefits to influence mood during the menstrual cycle as taught by Shimizu on page 1, lines 22-27.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claims 8-9.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/096865 (as translated by US 2019/0254890) in view of Young et al. (US 5,147,345) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0353354) and further in view of Barbosa et al. (US 2016/0089279) .
With reference to claim 10, Yonaha teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Yonaha and claim 10 is the provision that the product has an uncompressed caliper when laid flat on a horizontal surface, no greater than 20 mm.
Barbosa et al. (hereinafter “Barbosa”) teaches an analogous personal care article having an uncompressed caliper in a laid flat state (figure 1) of no greater than 20mm as set forth in [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Yonaha with the caliper as taught by Barbosa in order to provide an article with enhanced fluid wicking and distribution as taught by Barbosa in [0003-0004].
As to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant continues to argue that a discovery of a source or a cause of a problem must be considered. Applicant states that certain orientations of a folded pad within a package are less convenient and cause unwanted perception of contamination.
Initially, applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is understood that a thorough interpretation of the claim language may be added by explanations contained within the written description, however limitations that are not a part of the claim cannot be imported into the claim language.
Applicant insists that the specification provides evidence substantiating the discovery of the source or cause of a problem that must be considered. Applicant asserts that the specification addresses the inconvenience and lack of discretion that users face when using pads within packaging and has identified that certain orientations of folded pads that are less convenient and unwanted.
Applicant, however, has failed to identify how the combination of references cited in the rejection of the claims result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Regarding the Yonaha reference, applicant continues to rely on figures 5A-5E to support the assertion that the absorbent article is folded together with the packaging sheet and the release sheet. This argument is not persuasive because, as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Yonaha discloses that the absorbent article is individually packaged after folding as set forth in [0126]. Even if the figures depict a different interpretation/embodiment, the reference clearly states that the article is individually packaged after being folded. This language can also be clearly interpreted to mean exactly what it states – that the article is folded and then packaged.
Applicant argues that Lee provides no guidance on fold lines. Lee is not relied upon for the teaching of the fold lines. Those limitations are met by Yonaha. Lee is introduced for the teaching of providing individual, separately folded absorbent articles within a package with the desired aspect ratio.
Applicant continues to reference and highlight the instant specification and states that a discovery of a source or a cause of a problem must be considered.
The properties and benefits of the invention as a whole have been considered, however, claims must particularly point out and distinctively claim the invention.
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.
Applicant argues that the instant specification addresses the inconvenience and/or lack of discretion faced by users. While this benefit has not been incorporated into the claim language, the benefit has still been addressed. See, for example, the rejection of claim 1 which sets forth the knowledge in the art of the prior art reference addressing the same concern. Specifically, Lee provides an aspect ratio identical to that claimed in order to provide a consumer with portable and discrete usage of the system as set forth in [0001] and in [0084] of Lee.
While the benefits and properties are taken into consideration, applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that Young does not teach the limitations as claimed. This argument is not persuasive.
Young teaches that HIPE based foams are the preferred foam for the sublayers of the core as set forth in col. 3, lines 23-34. Young also establishes that the absorbent core includes at least two distinct components including both a fluid acquisition/distribution component and a fluid storage/redistribution component (col. 5, lines 20-27). Young also provides the fluid acquisition/distribution component (i.e., first sublayer) with a first average cell size (i.e., 10 microns as set forth in col. 7, lines 4-5 and the fluid storage/redistribution component (i.e., second sublayer) with a second, smaller average cell size (i.e., 5 microns) as set forth in col. 22, line 46.s
Regarding the teachings of Lee, Lee is relied upon for the knowledge in the art of providing a personal care article packaging with a specific access opening. The folding of the article and the providing the article with a fold proximate an opening has been disclosed by Yonaha as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the source of the problem solved by the present invention was not known at the relevant time, the examiner contends that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant also argues that proposed modifications cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The examiner contends that this is not the case for the combination of references presented.
Applicant argues that the key innovation of Yonaha is a “hip hold” portion. The examiner notes that Yonaha is concerned with providing an article with a better body fit [0012] and the inclusion of various fold lines serves as the means to do so.
Applicant is encouraged to clearly set forth how the limitations of the recited claim language differs from the cited prior art. The benefits and advantages provided from the structural language would necessarily flow from the identical elements presented by the prior art.
Applicant argues that the Office action merely identifies a range or list of known values and selects one therefrom.
Applicant is reminded that:
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights