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 .
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 8-11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22 and 23 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 16-18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 8-11, 13, 14, 19 and 22-23 are rejected.
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.
Claims 8-11, 13, 14, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelley (US 20090067760) in view of Applicant’s admission of the prior art, Pendleton (US 11382343), Zarow (US 3573924), Hallinan (US 3115409), Smittle (US 20190124959) and in further view of Hamilton (US 20040137202), Visioli (WO 9814073), Gutzmann (US 20080274242) and Fukatsu (US 20080138385), and in further view of Files (US 20100273377) and in further view of Han (US 20180072463).
It is noted that claim 11 is the independent claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Shelly teaches a method of inhibiting mold growth within a bag (see paragraph 21 - “antimicrobial agents”) for a feed product (see at least, figure 2 and paragraph 61 - “food containers”). While figure 2 of Shelley shows one form of a mold inhibiting bag, Shelley further teaches that the bags can also be used in commercial applications such as fill and seal food packaging operations (see paragraph 69). Therefore, Shelley is teaching adding a feed product to the bag and sealing the bag.
Shelley also teaches that the active agent can be incorporated into the first material layer, thus teaching that the antibacterial agent can be embedded within and inseparable from an inner layer (see paragraph 18).
Shelley’s teachings of including antimicrobial agents is seen to at least encompass reducing the mold growth to some degree. Shelley also teaches that the term “active agent” can include any agent, ingredient or composition that provides an enhancing or beneficial effect, as well as an inhibitor which inhibits or deters a certain condition, e.g. a spoilage inhibitor, a fungus inhibitor… (see paragraph 64) and is therefore open to other active agents usable with the bag. Shelly also teaches powdered active agents can be mixed with the material forming the inner layer to incorporate the active agent (see paragraph 82), thus teaching and suggesting granular antimicrobial materials as embedded within and inseparable from the film layer.
Shelley suggests the package is useable for agricultural products (see paragraph 196), but claim 11 differs from Shelley in specifically reciting, “producing the livestock feed product by causing a feed to exit a mill or an extruder at a temperature ranging from about 120°F to about 200°F; after producing of the livestock feed product, adding the produced livestock feed product directly to the bag upon exiting the mill or extruder, wherein the livestock feed product has an elevated moisture level of at least about 5wt% up to about 20 wt%, wherein the livestock feed product comprises pellets or extruded nuggets each having a diameter of greater than about one inch; sealing the bag containing the livestock feed product at an elevated temperature and the elevated moisture level; and allowing the livestock feed product to cool and release moisture within the bag,” and “wherein at least about three weeks after adding the feed product to the bag, no mold growth is observed within the bag.”
It is noted however, that Applicant’s admission of the prior art, at paragraph 2 of the specification as filed, further evidences that it has been known for feed to release moisture within the sealed bags and where such moisture can then become vulnerable to mold growth. Regarding the specific step of exiting a mill or an extruder and being directly added to the bag upon exiting the mill or extruder, Pendleton teaches producing pellets for livestock feed (see column 1, lines 23-27 – “feed pellets” for feeding cattle), where during pelleting, steam at a temperature of 150°F can be applied to the feed mixture (see column 2, lines 11-21) and where a maximum temperature of the pellets at the exit of the pellet mill can be 195°F with a moisture content of 11-15% (see column 7, lines 22-24). Pendleton also teaches that the after pelleting there may be a pellet cooler for drying and reducing the temperature of the feed pellets to dry to moisture levels such as between 9-12wt% (see column 1, lines 50-52, 59-62); and therefore suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art that there need not be a drying and cooling step after exiting the pellet mill. This is further supported by column 7, lines 22-24 where Pendleton teaches a moisture content of 11-15% that overlaps with the range already desired when cooling and drying. Pendleton therefore suggests that after pelletizing, the feed pellets can be stored in bags (see column 1, lines 30-32). Zarow also suggests that it has been known when producing livestock feed (see the abstract – “animal feed”; see column 4, lines 35-38 – “cattle supplement”) that upon exiting a mill, the feed product can have a temperature of 150-155°F (see column 4, line 19 and lines 22-26; column 3, lines 7-19) which resulted in pellets that were harder and did not agglomerate (see column 4, lines 30-34). Zarow is thus suggesting that such pellet mill procedures can be useful for subsequent packaging without softening or caking (see column 2, lines 27-39; column 3, lines 7-19). Zarow is also teaching that the pellet has a moisture content of about 15% (see column 2, lines 48-49) and that the diameter of the pellet can be 1.5 inches (see column 4, line 16: ¼ inch by 1.5 inch die aperture). At column 3, lines 7-19, Zarow is also suggesting that after exiting the pellet mill at a temperature of about 150°F the final product is free-flowing, sufficiently bodied for easy handing and readily packaged thus suggesting directly packaging after exiting the pellet mill. If it could have been construed that Pendleton and Zarow did not specifically teach packaging at the above exit temperatures, Hallinan further teaches that it has been conventional to extrude a pet feed directly into a packaging at temperatures such as 180°F (see column 6, lines 58-62) and where the packaging can also be a bag and where extruding directly into the package desirably can provide excellent keeping properties (see column 6, line 71 to column 7, line 2). Hallinan teaches packaging while still hot for the purpose of also providing sterility to the package interior (see column 4, lines 40-56). Smittle also teaches filling livestock feed (see paragraph 130) into pouches (see paragraph 118), where the feed can be kibbles (see paragraph 118) and where the filling of the container with the food can be done at temperatures such as 71°C (i.e. 159°F) or 15-50°C above room temperature (i.e. about 25°C + 15-50°C which is equivalent to 104-167°F) (see paragraph 151). Smittle also teaches that the food can be an extruded or pelletized food (see paragraph 64 – “pellet mill”; paragraph 120 – “extruded”) with a moisture content of less than 20wt% (see paragraph 35) and where the filling and sealing are performed at the elevated temperature. Smittle teaches that such filling can also prevent the package from becoming puffy during long term storage – which is more appealing to consumers (see paragraph 152).
Since Pendleton, Zarow, Hallinan and Smittle already suggest sealing the bag with the livestock feed, where the livestock feed is at an elevated temperature and moisture level such as 15wt% or less than 20wt%, to thus modify Shelley and to fill and seal a livestock feed product at temperatures such as 150°F, 180°F or within the range of 104-167°F with a moisture content of about 15% or less than 20wt% as taught by Pendleton, Zarow and Smittle, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design based on known and conventional expedients for how livestock feed has been packaged and sealed.
Regarding the step of, “allowing the livestock feed product to cool and release moisture within the bag,” since the combination already teaches a sealed bag with food at an elevated temperature, and since the combination does not recite any additional heating step after packaging, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the packaged product would have been allowed to cool and release moisture within the bag.
Regarding the limitation of, “the livestock feed product comprises pellets or extruded nuggets each having a diameter of greater than about one inch” it is noted that Zarow teaches that the diameter of the pellet can be 1.5 inches (see column 4, line 16: ¼ inch by 1.5 inch die aperture). It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have altered the size of the pellet as an obvious change in the size and proportions desired for the livestock feed product.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein at least about three weeks after adding the livestock feed product to the bag, no mold growth is observed within the bag,” Shelley teaches that the active agent, which can be an antimicrobial, can be used within the range of 0.1-5wt% as recited in claim 8 (see paragraph 97); and where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that an antimicrobial could provide some degree of mold inhibition.
The claim differs however in specifically reciting, “wherein at least about three weeks after adding the feed product to the bag, no mold growth is observed within the bag.” Further regarding the mold inhibitor embedded within and inseparable from an inner layer,” and wherein the granular calcium propionate is further embedded in one or more layers of the multi-layered substrate, if it could have been construed that Shelley was not clear in this regard, then Hamilton and Visioli have been relied on as discussed below.
Hamilton teaches a method of inhibiting mold growth (see at least, paragraph 36, 37 - “efficacy against molds…”) within a bag (see paragraph 103), for a feed product (see at least, the abstract; and paragraphs 39,40 “food preservatives”). The antimicrobial agent taught by Hamilton can be incorporated into an inner layer of the bag and additionally into any other layer of the multilayer structure (see paragraph 20 where the web material 22 can comprise a secondary function by incorporation into one of the layers of the web and the secondary function can be incorporated into any of barrier material, tie layers, outer layers or any combination thereof; see paragraph 32 where the secondary function can be an antimicrobial agent; see also paragraph 34 which incorporates the antimicrobial agents into the packaging materials). Hamilton also teaches that the antimicrobial agent can be in a powder or particulate form, therefore reading on a granular antimicrobial agent (see paragraph 35 “particles” “powders”) and which antimicrobial agents can be calcium propionate (see paragraph 40, last sentence).
Visioli similarly teaches filling a bag comprising a fungicide containing film as an inner layer (see page 5, lines 22-25), containing food (see at least, page 1, lines 5-14), which fungicide can be calcium propionate Visioli (page 12, lines 30-32). Visioli further teaches eliminating mold formation for periods of time such as 23 days (i.e. three weeks), using amounts of a fungicide such as 0.5-0.7%.(see page 12, lines 33-35). Visioli further suggests that benzoic acid and calcium propionate can be equally used to provide the requisite inhibition of mold (see page 12, lines 30-32; page 13, lines 2-3, 15-20; page 17, lines 21-23 - “metal salt of….. present at 0.15-10 weight percent.”) and can be blended into the material of the film (see at least, page 12, lines 13-32). Visioli is also embedding the mold inhibitor into the layer such that it is not separable from the layer (see page 6, line 30 to page 7, line 20, where the metal salts such as calcium propionate are incorporated into the thermoplastic material) and teaches that the extruded films can have some degree of grain (see page 7, lines 16-20 which teaches finely dispersing during melt blending and suggesting a grainy appearance, and thus is suggesting some degree of granularity to the mold inhibitor). This granularity is also suggested by Visioli because on page 6, lines 33-35 the reference teaches melt temperatures of less than 200°C and where melt temperatures may be higher than 200°C and because on page 7, lines 17-20, Visioli teaches melt temperatures for metal salts are above 250°C.
Further regarding the mold inhibiter comprising granular calcium propionate, it is noted that Gutzmann teaches that it has been conventional to impregnate/embed powdered antimicrobial compositions as part of thermoplastic films used to form food packaging (see paragraph 37). Gutzmann also teaches antimicrobial agents (see paragraph 35) which overlap with those taught by Hamilton at paragraph 35 and by those taught by Visioli on page 5, lines 9-20).
Shelley is not limiting as to the particular type of antimicrobial agent applied.
To thus modify the combination and to use a mold inhibitor such as granular calcium propionate that is embedded within and inseparable from the inner layer of Shelley’s bag would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of inhibiting mold growth that can develop after sealing animal feed within the package. Additionally, since the prior art teaches similar amounts of a similar mold inhibitor, and further preventing mold growth for 23 days, there would have been a reasonable expectation that the prior art combination would have performed similarly to the claimed result of “at least about three weeks after adding the feed product to the bag, no mold growth is observed within the bag.”
Shelley teaches that the bag can comprise a multilayer structure (see paragraph 67, 168) with the antimicrobial agent embedded into an inner layer (paragraph 18, 26). Shelley also teaches a single layer web (paragraph 169, 192).
The claim differs from Shelley in specifically reciting, “wherein the bag further consists of four layers each comprising each comprising a mold inhibitor comprising granular calcium propionate embedded within the layers, the four layers consisting of an inner layer and a three-layered substrate joined to the inner layer, wherein the inner layer comprises a polymer resin-based film extrudate containing perforations for breathability to an exterior of the bag, wherein the three-layered substrate comprises an outer layer comprising a film extrudate; a fabric contacting the inner layer; and a lamination extrudate between the film extrudate and the fabric,”
Claim 19 further differs in specifically reciting that the film extrudate comprises biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP) and the fabric comprises woven polypropylene.
However, Files teaches packaging materials for pet food (see paragraph 3, 13 and 82), where there is a multilayer structure with an outer layer comprising BOPP (see figure 1A, item 106 and figure 2, item 216 and paragraph 62 and 63; see also paragraph 32) then a lamination extrudate, such as a tie layer (Figure 2, item 220 which is between a polymer layer and a fabric layer 202; see paragraph 59; see paragraph 13, 2nd to last sentence which discloses tie layers between any of the layers for improving adhesion ), and then a woven polypropylene fabric layer (see figure 1A item 102; figure 2, item 202; paragraph 41 “woven polymer substrate 102 comprises propylene”; paragraph 57) and an inner layer next to the fabric layer (figure 1A, item 108, figure 2, item 212). Files teaches such combinations of layers has been advantageous for providing strength, stiffness (see paragraph 4) and sealability (see paragraph 5 and 7). Since figure 1A of Files also discloses an inner layer 104,108 (see paragraph 32), the reference is teaching a bag consisting of four layers.
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Shelley combination and join Shelley’s single layer embodiment to a multilayered substrate comprising an outer layer of BOPP with a subsequent woven polypropylene fabric layer in contact with the inner layer and a lamination extrudate such as a tie layer between the woven polypropylene and the BOPP, for the purpose of providing added strength and sealability to a pet food package.
Alternatively, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Files’s multilayer structure consisting of an inner layer, a woven polypropylene fabric layer contacting the inner layer, an outer layer of BOPP and a lamination extrudate between the BOPP film extrudate and the woven polypropylene fabric layer, because Files teaches that such bags have improved sealability and strength and because Shelley is not seen to be limiting as to the particular bag structure. Modification would have resulted in Shelley’s mold inhibitor to be impregnated or incorporated into Files’s inner layer.
Regarding the granular calcium propionate being embedded into each of the four layers, it is noted that Hamilton already teaches and suggests incorporating a powdered form of an antimicrobial agent, which can be calcium propionate (see paragraph 34, 35 and 40) into an inner layer of the bag and additionally into any other layer of the multilayer structure (see paragraph 20 where the web material 22 can comprise a secondary function by incorporation into one of the layers of the web and the secondary function can be incorporated into any of barrier material, tie layers, outer layers or any combination thereof; see paragraph 32 where the secondary function can be an antimicrobial agent; see also paragraph 34 which incorporates the antimicrobial agents into the packaging materials; see page 11, claim 2, where the web can be woven or nonwoven). Visioli also suggests that multiple layers of a film can comprise the antimicrobial agent (see page 17, lines 3-15, “at least one layer comprising the fungicidal compound). Fukatsu also teaches that woven or nonwoven fabrics can have a particulate antimicrobial composition as part of the fabric (see paragraph 90, 97, 168) and where the fabric can be used for bags (see paragraph 170) and can be used for food purposes (see paragraph 143).
To therefore modify the combination and to include the granular calcium propionate into each layer of the four layer bag structure would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious duplication of the inclusion of the mold inhibitor for the purpose of providing greater levels of mold inhibition between the interior and exterior of the package.
Regarding the limitation of, “the inner layer comprises a polymer resin-based film extrudate containing perforations for breathability to an exterior of the bag” it is noted that the claim differs from Shelley in this regard.
Hamilton evidences the desirability of providing microperforations through a film used as a bag (see paragraph 66) for packaging foods, so as to prevent condensation and moisture from building up on the food (see paragraph 68 and 120) and is therefore breathable to an exterior of the bag. Additionally, Han teaches a packaging bag for foods (see the abstract) using a bag that comprises an inner layer (figure 2, item 201), a woven polymeric layer next to the inner layer (see figure 2, item 202 and paragraph 77-78) and then a lamination layer (figure 2, item 206) and then an outer layer (figure 2, item 203; paragraph 77). Han further teaches that there can be perforations in the inner layer (figure 2, item 104) for the purpose of helping the contents retain the desired moisture and reducing bacterial growth (see paragraph 50) and for breathability to an exterior of the bag (see paragraph 22).
To modify the combination and to provide the inner layer with perforations for breathability to an exterior of the bag would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of controlling the moisture within the bag and to further reduce bacterial growth and for preventing the package from inflating due to an accumulation of vapor inside the package.
Regarding claim 13, in view of Pendleton, Zarow and Smittle as applied to claim 11, the combination suggests elevated packaging temperatures such as about 150°F or 104-167°F or 129°F (see Zarow column 3, lines 7-19; column 4, lines 19; Smittle paragraph 151 which suggests a filling temperature of 104-167°F (i.e. 25°C + 15-50°C; Smittle paragraph 171 teaches a filling temperature of 49-54°C or 120-129°F). In view of Hallinan, the combination is also suggesting an elevated temperature such as 180°F.
Regarding claim 14 and the elevated moisture ranging from about 11 wt% to about 13wt% it is noted that Pendleton teaches a moisture content at extrusion of 11-15% (column 7, lines 23-24) and Zarow teaches of a moisture content of “about 15wt%” (see column 5, lines 13-19) is seen to overlap with the claimed amount of “about 13 wt%”). Smittle also teaches a moisture content of less than 20wt% (paragraph 35). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been routinely led to provide the extruded livestock feed as taught by Pendleton, Zarow and Smittle to have a moisture content of 11-13wt% for the purpose of providing livestock feed with conventional amounts of moisture.
Regarding claim 8, Shelley teaches that the active agent, which can be an antimicrobial agent and thus a mold inhibitor to some degree, can be used within the range of 0.1-5wt% (see paragraph 97). It is further noted that Visioli further teaches eliminating mold formation for periods of time such as 23 days (i.e. three weeks), using amounts of a fungicide such as 0.5-0.7%.(see page 12, lines 33-35). On page 12, Visioli further suggests that hydroxy benzoic acid and calcium propionate can be equally used to provide the requisite inhibition of mold (see page 12, lines 30-32; see also page 17, lines 21-23 - “metal salt of….. present at 0.15-10 weight percent.”). To thus modify the combination and use a mold inhibitor, such as calcium propionate, on the inner layer at 0.1-5wt% would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of achieving the requisite elimination and inhibition of mold formation.
Regarding claim 9, the claim has been construed to require the exclusion in the feed product of “the mold inhibitor” or “another mold inhibiting agent” in the alternative. In view of this, it is noted that Pendleton teaches that the feed pellet may further include a preservative (see column 2, lines 62-63) where the language “may,” suggests that there need not be a preservative included with the feed pellet.
Regarding claim 10, Pendleton, Zarow and Smittle teach the animal feed can be for livestock, as discussed above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, in view of Han, the combination teaches that the outer layer and the lamination extrudate further comprise perforations for breathability to the exterior of the bag.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of She (US 20100310750).
Further regarding claim 9, if it could have been construed that the claim differed from the combination applied to claim 11 in specifically reciting that the feed product does not include the mold inhibitor or another mold inhibiting agent, then it is noted that She evidences that it has been conventional in the art of producing livestock feed (see paragraph 17 – “any domesticated or wild species”), which is thus similar to Pendleton, Zarow and Smittle, and where desirably, the extruded feed is free from any preservatives (see the abstract; paragraph 8; paragraph 48), while still having similar moisture contents as that suggested by Pendleton and Zarow (see She, paragraph 37). The art thus teaches the desirability of preservative free animal feed products that are similarly extruded into pieces, and to therefore modify the combination and to exclude mold inhibiting agents from the animal feed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of the desirability in the art of providing animal feeds that are preservative free.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 22, above and in further view of Varillas (US 20160101916).
Regarding claim 23, Han teaches a woven material which would obviously have had a porosity and holes therein (see figure 1, which shows woven layer 102 with holes). Han teaches that air holes or micro-perforations can be formed at any suitable stage during bag construction (see paragraph 51) and are used for breathability (see paragraph 22).
Claim 23 differs from the combination as applied to claim 22 in specifically reciting wherein the fabric does not include the perforations.
Varillas teaches another known expedient for providing breathability to an exterior of a bag used for holding food, is to provide a first and second layer with perforations (see figure 3, item 11 and 13) and where a fabric layer (figure 3, item 12) does not have perforations, since it would already have been porous (see paragraph 26, “nonwoven fabric layer” and paragraph 27; paragraphs 26-27 also discuss controlled ventilation). Varillas is providing a non-woven fabric layer that does not have perforations because the nonwoven itself is breathable and this is similar to Han because Han is also providing holes in the packaging laminate for breathability.
To therefore modify the combination and to use a fabric material that does not require perforations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a substitution of one type of fabric for another, both recognized to provide ventilation to the exterior of the bag.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the response, Applicant urges that the combination does not teach or suggest the bag consists of four layers each comprising a mold inhibitor comprising granular calcium propionate embedded within and inseparable from the layers, the four layers consisting of an inner layer and a three-layered substrate joined to the inner layer, wherein the inner layer comprises a polymer resin-based film extrudate containing perforations for breathability to an exterior of the bag.
This argument is not sufficient because Files teaches that there is an advantage to using a bag that specifically consists of a four layer structure, such as for strength and Han teaches that providing the inner most layer, the outer layer and the lamination extrudate with perforations has been advantageous for preventing moisture vapor within the bag from causing the bag to inflate. Additionally, Hamilton teaches that the fungicide, such as particulate calcium propionate can be incorporated into any layer of a multilayer structure, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include granular calcium propionate in each layer of the four layer structure taught by Files, for the purpose of increasing the inhibitory effect against mold.
Further on page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that one having ordinary skill in the art in developing a bag for livestock would not have incorporated the teachings of Hamilton, which are limited to adhesive cling-wrap materials.
This argument is not persuasive, because while Hamilton teaches food wraps, the reference equally teaches that the films can be formed into a storage bag (see paragraph 85) and where the purpose of the fungicides such as calcium propionate is to protect the edible contents from mold. Therefore, Hamilton would have been equally applicable to providing inhibitory effects against mold to packages containing animal feed.
Further on page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that at no point does Visioli disclose a four layered bag structure that includes a granular mold inhibitor present in each of the four layers nor does it suggest such a structure given its core teaching of integrally melt-blending a fungicidal compound with a specific thermoplastic.
These arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection because the claim is directed to a method of using a bag and not the method of making the bag. In view of this, since Hamilton already teaches that any layer of a multilayer structure that can be a bag for holding food can include the mold inhibitors it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used Visioli and Hamilton’s teachings for each layer of the Shelley/Files multilayer structure for the purpose of further increasing the inhibitory effect of the multilayer structure.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 reiterate the above remarks and are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu (CN 108283260) discloses incorporating fungicides such as calcium propionate into a mixture used to make a film (see the abstract; paragraph 18, 25, 45)
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights