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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1-2, filed on 8/11/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the linoleum floor covering is a shaped as a tile or a panel.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not provide support for the claim 1 limitation “mainly adhered.” The specification only discloses the first layer and second layer being adhered to each other through the through openings, and does not provide support for a relative degree of adherence as claimed. Claims 2-14 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrens (WO 2016/057080 A1, wherein US 2016/0102428 A1 is relied upon as an equivalent reference) in view of Vieluf (US Patent No. 6440543 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Behrens teaches surface coverings comprising a carrier (a reinforcement layer), a first linoleum composition, and a second linoleum composition; wherein the flow rate of the first linoleum composition is greater than the flow rate of the second linoleum composition (Abstract). In some embodiments, the surface covering may be used as a linoleum floor covering and have a total thickness of about 1 mm to about 6 mm; alternatively from about 2 mm to about 4 mm ([0014]). In some embodiments, the use of a first linoleum composition that has low viscosity/high flow rate, allows the first linoleum composition to better penetrate the voids present in the carrier ([0055]). In some embodiments, the penetration is sufficient for the carrier to be embedded in the first linoleum composition ([0055]).
Linoleum cement acts as a binder and comprises a drying oil and a resin, such as rosin, to act as a tackifier….In some embodiments, the drying oil can be oxidized by atmospheric oxygen to form a dry solid (cured as claimed) [0031]). In some embodiments, the carrier may include a binder and a fibrous material ([0016]). In some embodiments, the fibrous material is woven or knitted (knitted material) ([0016). In some embodiments, first and second strands may be oriented so that the voids extend all the way through the body of the carrier—i.e. from the first side of the carrier to the second side of the carrier (through holes) ([0026] and [0022]).
In some embodiments, the first strands are separated by a length of about 1 mm, the second strands are separated by a width of about 1 mm, and the first and second strands have an offset angle of about 90°—thereby resulting in substantially square voids having a length and a width of about 1 mm ([0024]). In some embodiments, the offset angle, width, and length may be selected such that the resulting carrier comprises greater than about 10 voids/cm2, across the surface of the carrier ([0025). In some embodiments, the offset angle, width, and length may be selected such that the resulting carrier comprises less than about 100 voids/cm2, across the surface of the carrier ([0025]). As calculated by the examiner, each square void having a length and width of 1 mm would have an area of 1 mm2 = 0.01 cm2. Thus, as calculated for the range of 10 to less than 100 voids/cm2, the combined surface area of the voids would range from greater than 10% to less than 100% of the total surface area of the carrier (e.g., 100 x 0.01 cm2 = 1 cm2, which as a percentage of area in a square cm would be 100%). The examiner notes that similar calculations can also be made based on the narrow ranges of void sizes and voids/cm2 disclosed by Behrens in paragraphs [0023]-[0025] (e.g., 10 to 60% for sizes of 0.5mm to 2mm and 20 voids/cm2 to 30 voids/cm2).
It is the examiner’s position that the prior art discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity so as to constitute anticipation of the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, it is the examiner’s position that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Behrens does not explicitly disclose a second layer of cured linoleum composition wherein the first layer and second layer are mainly adhered to each other through the through openings.
However, Vieluf teaches a floorcovering tile which has an upper and a lower layer and a carrier arranged between these, where at least one of the two layers is a service layer (Abstract). The other coated layer may consist of a material which is different from that of the service layer and essentially serves only to counteract the distortion force exerted by the service layer; this layer adheres, on the one hand, to a sufficient extent to the carrier and/or carrier fabric and, if desired, to the material which comes from the service layer on the other side and has penetrated into the carrier fabric, and, on the other hand, it should be capable of being adhesively bonded to the floor (col. 2, lines 24-43). The layer applied onto the reverse side of the carrier can consist of a material other than linoleum (col. 5 lines 15-17). Both layers preferably consist of linoleum and even more preferably of linoleum of essentially the same formulation (col. 5, lines 22-23). The examiner notes that the carrier can be any conventional carrier, and Vieluf teaches embodiments in which an uncoated fabric such as a jute fabric is used, as well as preferred embodiments in which a glass-fiber fabric coated with a coupling agent is used (col. 5, lines 4-14, and Examples 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have applied a second layer of linoleum on the second side of the carrier (the reinforcement material) of Behrens, with either the first layer or second layer penetrated into the carrier fabric and with either the first or second layer adhered to both the carrier and the material of the other layer, in order to successfully counteract distortion forces exerted by the first layer and to thereby obtain floorcovering tiles that do not show undesirable bowing (col. 2 lines 26-29, col. 5 lines 22-27, col. 1 lines 32-39, and Examples 1-3). In doing so, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have maintained the same combined surface area of voids taught by Behrens in order to maintain increased surface contact between the carrier and the first and/or second layer, thereby providing enhanced mechanical adhesion and structural integrity of the overall surface covering, as suggested by Behrens ([0055]).
Regarding claim 3, as applied above, and as calculated by the examiner, each square void having a length and width of 1 mm would have an area of 1 mm2. In some embodiments, the length may range from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm. In some embodiments, the length may range from about 0.5 mm to about 2 mm ([0023]). In some embodiments, the length may be about 1 mm. In some embodiments, the width may range from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm. In some embodiments, the width may range from about 0.5 mm to about 2 mm. In some embodiments, the width may be about 1 mm ([0023]). According to embodiments, the voids may be a variety of shapes, including triangular, rectangular, rhombus, trapezoidal, and polygonal, depending on the offset angle, the length, and the width ([0024]).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Behrens teaches that, in some embodiments, the first strands are separated by a length of about 1 mm, the second strands are separated by a width of about 1 mm, and the first and second strands have an offset angle of about 90°—thereby resulting in substantially square voids having a length and a width of about 1 mm ([0024]). According to some embodiments, the angle offset between the first strands and the second strands create an intersecting grid of first stands and second stands ([0022]). Thus, the examiner notes that the claimed limitation of a regular pattern would be met. (Also see [0023]).
Regarding claims 5-6, Behrens teaches that, in some embodiments, the surface covering may be used as a linoleum floor covering and have a total thickness of about 1 mm to about 6 mm; alternatively from about 2 mm to about 4 mm ([0014]). In some embodiments, the thickness of the first linoleum layer may be varied and ranges from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm; alternatively about 0.2 mm to about 4 mm; alternatively from about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm; about 0.75 mm to about 2 mm; alternatively about 1 mm. ([0029]). In some embodiments, the second linoleum layer has a thickness of from about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm; alternatively from about 0.75 mm to about 3 mm; alternatively from about 1 mm to about 1.5 mm; alternatively from about 1.1 mm to about 1.4 mm ([0049]). Thus, as calculated by the examiner, the thickness of the carrier (the reinforcement layer) would overlap with the claimed range (e.g., 2.5 - [1+1.25] = 0.25 mm).
Regarding claim 9, Vieluf teaches a floorcovering tile (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Behrens teaches that, in some embodiments, the synthetic fiber may be selected from a polyester (e.g. polyethylene terephthalate), a polyolefin (e.g. polypropylene), polytetrafluoroethylene, polyacrlyonitrile, a polyamide (e.g. nylon), polyacrylate, fiberglass, etc., and a combination of two or more thereof ([0018]). Some embodiments provide that the carrier may comprise a material selected from: jute fabric; a mixed fabric of natural fibers; carbon fibers; aramid fibers; quartz fibers; alumina fibers; silicon carbide fibers; and a combination of two or more thereof ([0018]). The examiner notes that materials such as polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene, quartz, alumina, etc. would meet the claimed limitation. (also see Vieluf: cols. 2-3, lines 65-8, and col. 5, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 11, Behrens teaches that, in some embodiments, the carrier may include a binder and a fibrous material ([0016]). In some embodiments, the fibrous material is woven or knitted ([0016]). In some embodiments, the binder may be present in an amount ranging from about 0 wt. % to about 40 wt. %, based on the weight of the carrier ([0016]). In some embodiments, the carrier may be provided with an adhesive coating (i.e. adhesion promoter) ([0021]). The examiner also notes that Vieluf teaches examples in which a jute fabric is used with no adhesives (col. 5, lines 4-5, and Examples 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Behrens in view of Vieluf remains as applied above to claim 1, teaching a first layer and second layer on opposite sides of the carrier. Behrens further teaches a second linoleum composition (a third layer) adjacent to the first linoleum composition (a first layer) ([0005]).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrens (WO 2016057080 A1, wherein US 20160102428 A1 is relied upon as an equivalent reference) in view of Vieluf (US Patent No. 6440543 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Miyazono et al. (US 2009/0182070 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Behrens in view of Vieluf remains as applied above.
Behrens in view of Vieluf does not explicitly disclose wherein the reinforcement layer is made of a warp knitted mesh comprising several yarns in which wales and courses run roughly parallel to themselves, wherein each wale is a column of loops corresponding to the first direction of the reinforcement layer and each course is a meandering row of loops moving both with the first direction of the wale and in a second direction of the reinforcement layer, interlocking to the wale loops at each crossing and connecting the individual columns of wale loops to each other.
However, Miyazono teaches polyester fibers having a conductivity excellent in stability when humidity fluctuates, and polyester textile products comprising the polyester fibers such as woven fabrics and knit fabrics and polyester textile products made by using the polyester fibers such as brushes ([0002]). The polyester fibers can be used, for example, for clothing use such as dustproof clothes, or for non-clothing use such as interior materials such as vehicle interior materials or wall materials for buildings, carpets or floor materials, and to these fibrous products, a desirable high conductivity can be given ([0014] and [0144]). As a structure for the knit fabric, can be exemplified a plain stitch such as a grey sheeting or a single, a rib type stitch such as a rib stitch, a purl stitch such as links, and other than those, a weft knitting such as a seed stitch, a crepe stitch, an accordion stitch, a small pattern, a lace stitch, a fleecy stitch, a half cardigan stitch, a full cardigan stitch, a ripple or a double pique, a warp knitting such as a tricot, a raschel or milanese stitch, etc,... ([0068]). As a method for mixing (kinds of fibers), a woven fabric such as a union cloth or reversible cloth using them as warp yarns or weft yarns, or a knit fabric such as a tricot or a raschel, can be exemplified, and as other methods, union twisting, doubling or entangling may be applied ([0072]; also see [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the knitted fabric of Behrens in view of Vieluf with a wrap knit stitch, such as a tricot, a raschel or milanese stitch, etc., in order to provide a structure that can have excellent electrostatic performance when used in a flooring or mat product, wherein the structure is also particular suitable for incorporating mixed kinds of fibers, as suggested by Miyazono ([0144]; also see [0014], [0071]-[0072] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazono teaches that, because the resin is polyester, it has almost no water absorption or moisture absorption property, and as a result, because the humidity dependency of the conductivity is small, the conductivity is very stable ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carrier (the reinforcement layer) with a hydrophobicity that is the same or larger than a hydrophobicity of the linoleum layer (the first and second layer) in order to provide stable properties, such as conductivity (for removal of static electricity) and strength, in a flooring product that is used inside or outside and is exposed to humidity ([0014] and [0043]).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrens (WO 2016057080 A1, wherein US 20160102428 A1 is relied upon as an equivalent reference) in view of Vieluf (US Patent No. 6440543 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zuckerman et al. (US Patent No. 3,937,861).
Regarding claim 7, Behrens in view of Vieluf remains as applied above.
Behrens in view of Vieluf does not explicitly disclose wherein the mass percentage of the reinforcement layer is maximally 3% of the total weight of the linoleum floor covering.
However, Zuckerman teaches a multilayer floor covering which is suitable for use as a playing surface of an athletic facility (Abstract). The floor covering comprises a composite needlepunched material in which a fiber batt bottom layer is needled into a support layer so that a portion of the fiber batt protrudes through the top of the support layer, a layer of polyurethane elastomer adhered to the composite needlepunched material and a top wear coating of polyurethane adhered to the layer of urethane elastomer (Abstract). The support layer is preferably a woven or knitted fabric but can also be a nonwoven fabric or a polymeric film (col. 2 lines 8-17). The support layer preferably has a weight of about 2 to 5 ounces per square yard (same section). Thus, the total weight of the composite of the fiber batt plus the support layer is preferably between about 12 and 85 ounces per square yard (same section). The floor covering has a total thickness of about 7/64 to 3/4 of an inch, weights about 60 to 450 ounces/square yard…. (col. 5 lines 37-44). As calculated by the examiner, the weight of the disclosed knitted support layer would be within the claimed range (e.g., 2 osy / 100 osy = 2%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the knitted fabric with a weight of about 2 to 5 ounces per square yard within a floor covering having an overall weight in a range of about 60 to 450 ounces/square yard in order to provide a knitted fabric that can reasonably be expected to function as a support layer that provides dimensional stability to the floor covering product, as suggested by the disclosure of Zuckerman (col. 2 lines 8-17; also see Abstract and col. 5 lines 37-44). As calculated by the examiner, the weight of the disclosed knitted support layer would be within the claimed range (e.g., 2 osy / 100 osy = 2%).
Regarding claim 14, as applied above, Zuckerman teaches that the support layer preferably has a weight of about 2 to 5 ounces per square yard (col. 2 lines 8-17). As calculated by the examiner, this is equivalent to a range of about 68 g/m2 to 167 g/m2, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 100g/m2.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrens (WO 2016057080 A1, wherein US 20160102428 A1 is relied upon as an equivalent reference) in view of Vieluf (US Patent No. 6440543 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dekok (EP-74681-B2, see attachment).
Regarding claim 8, Behrens in view of Vieluf remains as applied above.
Behrens in view of Vieluf does not explicitly disclose wherein the reinforcement layer has a first tensile strength in a first direction and a second tensile strength in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the first tensile strength is larger than the second tensile strength.
However, Dekok teaches a floor covering, comprising a fabric substrate and an upper layer of a wear-proof material with an elastomeric behaviour adhered thereon, the fabric threads (1) directed in the transversal direction of the web having a large elasticity module, and the fabric threads (2) in the longitudinal direction of the web having a sufficient tensile strength for withstanding the longitudinal forces occurring during manufacturing, and having, in particular, a smaller elasticity module than the transversal threads (Abstract). During calendering, i.e. providing the upper layer material on the substrate between rollers, very substantial tensile forces may be exerted, so that threads with a high tensile strength are required (page 3 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the reinforcement layer with a higher tensile strength in the longitudinal direction than in the transversal direction in order to ensure that the web has a sufficient tensile strength for withstanding the longitudinal forces occurring during manufacturing (e.g., during calendering) while also having appropriate elastic properties in the transversal direction, as suggested by Dekok (Abstract and page 3 lines 24-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “However, although Behrens discloses that some embodiments may comprise substantially square voids having a length and a width of about 1 mm and that some embodiments have 10 to 100 voids/cm2, there is no disclosure of a specific embodiment having voids of 1 mm2 and at least 50 voids/cm2, which would, according to the calculations of the examiner, lead to a combined surface area of the voids of at least 50% of the total surface area of the carrier. In fact, the invention of Behrens as claimed proposes 20 to 30 voids/cm2 which would result in a combined surface area of 20% to 30% of the total surface area of the carrier. The feature that a combined surface area of the through openings is at least 50% of the total surface area of the reinforcement layer, as claimed in claim 1, is therefore also not disclosed in Behrens.”
Regarding this contention, as calculated by the examiner for Behrens’ disclosure of square voids having a length and width of 1 mm, and for a range of 10 to less than 100 voids/cm2, the combined surface area of the voids in the carrier of Behrens would range from greater than 10% to less than 100% of the total surface area of the carrier. The examiner notes that similar calculations could also be made based on the narrow ranges of void sizes and voids/cm2 disclosed by Behrens in paragraphs [0023]-[0025] (e.g., 10 to 60% for sizes of 0.5mm to 2mm and 20 voids/cm2 to 30 voids/cm2). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity so as to constitute anticipation of the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, it is the examiner’s position that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). The examiner also notes that applicant has not shown criticality of the claimed range.
Applicant contends the following: “According to Vieluf (column 2, lines 26-36), [the other coated layer] adheres to a sufficient extent to the carrier and/or carrier fabric and, if desired, to the material which comes from the service layer on the other side and has penetrated into the carrier fabric. Thus, although Vieluf discloses two linoleum layers at opposite sides of the carrier, Vieluf discloses that the carrier provides the main connection between the first layer and the second layer. Vieluf does not teach that the two layers are mainly connected to each other through openings in the carrier.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that Vieluf does not limit the extent to which the first and second layers adhere to the carrier relative to adhering to each other. Vieluf teaches that, if desired, one of the layers adheres to the material of the other layer that has penetrated into the carrier fabric (col. 2, lines 27-36). Vieluf further teaches an embodiment of the invention in which the first layer penetrates into the voids of the fabric (col. 5, lines 4-14). The examiner notes that both embodiments disclosed by Vieluf in this paragraph (a jute fabric and a preferred glass-fiber fabric coated with a coupling agent) represent successful examples of Vieluf’s invention (col. 5, lines 4-14, and Examples 1-3). Although Vieluf does not teach the first and second layer being mainly connected to each other through the through openings of the carrier, Behrens teaches a combined surface area of through voids in the carrier that overlaps with the claimed range of at least 50%. As applied above, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been motivated to maintain the combined surface area of through voids in the range taught by Behrens in order to provide penetration of the voids in the carrier such that the mechanical adhesion and the structural integrity of the surface covering remain increased ([0055]). The examiner notes that penetration of the first and/or second layer into the combined surface area of through voids taught by Behrens would result in the claimed limitation being met.
Applicant contends the following: “Further, according to Vieluf (see column 5, lines 4-14), it is preferable to use a glass-fiber fabric, for example coated with a styrene-butadiene latex as coupling agent, since the layer which is to be applied to the reverse side of the carrier adheres better to the coated glass-fiber fabric than to jute. The reason for this is that the layer on the reverse side is no longer able to penetrate the voids in the fabric, since these voids have already been filled by the firstly applied layer, and therefore the adhesion is not underpinned by any mechanical anchoring of the second layer onto the carrier. Thus, according to Vieluf, it is undesirable to use a carrier through which the material of the layers may completely penetrate. This also teaches away from the first layer and the second layer being mainly adhered to each other through the through openings.”
Regarding this contention, although Vieluf teaches that a glass-fiber-fabric coated with a coupling agent is preferable, Vieluf teaches, more broadly, that the carrier can be any conventional carrier, for example a jute fabric (col. 5, lines 4-5, and cols. 2-3, lines 65-8). Vieluf further teaches examples (Examples 1-3) of both uncoated jute fabrics and glass-fiber-fabric coated fabrics that represent Vieluf’s invention and which successfully provide the benefits thereof. Therefore, the teaching of a preferred embodiment in Vieluf does not teach away from the other embodiments of Vieluf’s invention, including use of a carrier that provides adherence of the linoleum layers through openings in the fabric.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789