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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of CN 201911348776.1 filed December 24, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2021/128801, the WIPO publication of PCT/CN2020/100580 filed July 7, 2020.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed October 21, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
October 21, 2025
Amended
1, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20
New
34-42
Cancelled
2-11, 14-16, 21-24, 28-29
Pending
1, 12-13, 17-20, 25-27, 31, 34-42
Withdrawn
13, 18-20, 25-27
Under Examination
1, 12, 17, 31, and 34-42
The applicant points out support for the claim amendments and new claims (Remarks pp. 10-11 Claims).
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 17 further limiting the claim 1 composition.
The following 112(d) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 17 not further limiting the claim 1 composition.
Response to Remarks filed October 21, 2025
Kato
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 12 para. 5, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to Kato have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 17 rejection under Kato has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the claim 17 amendments regarding the 112 rejections overcome the rejection of Kato (Remarks p. 12 para. 5).
Yamagata
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 12 para. 7, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to Yamagata have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 17 rejection under Yamagata has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the claim 17 amendments regarding the 112 rejections overcome the rejection over Yamagata (Remarks p. 12 para. 7).
Yamagata in view of Kato
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 12 para. 7, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to Yamagata in view of Kato have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 17 rejection under Yamagata in view of Kato has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the claim 17 amendments regarding the 112 rejections overcome the rejection over Yamagata in view of Kato (Remarks p. 12 para. 7).
Miwa 2015
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 13, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to Miwa 2015 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Miwa 2015 has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 recites when X is Ga, Ga is 1.274-1.552 wt% (Remarks p. 13 para. 2), whereas Miwa 2015 discloses 0.1 to 1 mass% or 0.13 to 0.8 mass% Ga (Miwa 2015 [0031]) (Remarks p. 13 paras. 5-6), Miwa 2015 does not mention Nb (Remarks p. 13 para. 7), and Miwa 2015 does not disclose 1.402-1.85 wt.% Ga in combination with the claimed amounts of Cu, Al, and Zr (Remarks para. spanning pp. 13-14).
Uchida
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 15, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to Uchida have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Uchida has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 recites 14.148 wt.% to 27.15 wt.% Pr (Remarks p. 15 para. 4), whereas Uchida discloses 27-31 wt% R includes 0.1-10 wt% Pr (Remarks p. 15 para. 6), which is lower than amended claim 1 (Remarks p. 15 para. 7).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further search and consideration a new ground of rejection is made over Hirozawa.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 lines 11-12 “a main phase, a grain boundary phase, and an intergranular triangle region” are given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the main phase forming the grains of the material, the grain boundary phase being located between two grains, and an intergranular triangle region being located between at least three grains.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites alternatively (1), (2), (3), and (4). Claim 17 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 limits X to being Ga, Nb, or a combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co, and Zr. In claim 17, compositions (2)-(4) correspond to the X options of claim 1, but (1) does not recite an X option. The C, B, and Fe contents of compositions (1)-(4) in claim 17 are all the same. Does claim 17 composition (1) not require the presence of X, such that this composition is broader than claim 1? If condition (1) is satisfied, then are not conditions (2)-(4) also necessarily satisfied? If so, then how can only “one of the following” be satisfied? The metes and bounds of claim 17 composition (1) are unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 17, and 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirozawa (JP S61-243153 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hirozawa discloses an RTB-based permanent magnet material (Abstract, p. 1 para. 1, p. 2 para. 2), wherein, the RTB-based permanent magnet material comprises the following components by mass percentage (9Pr-6Nd-77Fe-8B) (Table 1 No. 3):
R': 29.5-33.5 wt.% (32.7 wt%), wherein: R' is a rare earth element and R' comprises Pr; the content of Pr is 14.148 wt.%-27.15 wt.% (19.45 wt%);
0: < 0.07 wt.% (0 wt%);
B: 0.90-1.2 wt.% (1.3 wt%);
Fe: 61.4-69.5 wt.% (66.0 wt%).
The 9Pr-6Nd-77Fe-8B example in Hirozawa is silent to C.
Hirozawa discloses replacing a portion of B with 4.0 at% or less C (p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example of Hirozawa to replace the 8 at% B with 4.0 at% or less C to improve manufacturability of the magnet and reduce its price (p. 3 para. 2).
The 9Pr-6Nd-77Fe-8B example in Hirozawa is silent to X being one of the following conditions (1)-(3): (1) Ga; (2) Nb; (3) a combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr.
Hirozawa discloses 9.5 at% or less Nb (p. 3 para. 2) (when the X is Nb, then the content of Nb is 0.25-0.35 wt.%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example of Hirozawa to include 9.5 at% or less Nb to improve the coercive force and squareness of the demagnetization curve, improve manufacturability, and reduce costs without decreasing residual magnetic flux density (p. 3 para. 2).
Therefore, the Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa is modified to replace the 8 at% B with up to 4 at% C and to replace the 77 at% Fe with up to 9.5 at% Nb. As presented in the following table, the resulting modified alloy of Hirozawa overlaps with that claimed. Further, an example of a composition of the modified Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa that also falls within the scope of the claim is also presented in the table. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 wt%
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 wt% (at%)
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 Modified wt% (at%)
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 Modified Ex. wt% (at%)
R’
29.5-33.5
32.7
(15)
32.7
(15)
32.7
(15)
Pr
14.148-27.15
19.450
(9)
19.425
(9)
19.425
(9)
C
0.106-0.26
-
0.699 max
(4 max)
0.18
(1)
O
≤ 0.07
-
-
-
B
0.9-1.2
1.3
(8)
0.629-1.3
(4-8)
1.2
(7)
Fe
61.4-69.5
66.0
(77)
54.8-66.0
(67.5-77)
65.7
(76.8)
X one or more of
Ga
1.274-1.552
-
-
-
Nb
0.25-0.35
-
12.83 max
(9.5 max)
0.28
(0.2)
Cu
Al
Ga
Co
Zr
0.2-0.51
0-0.81
1.402-1.85
2.491-3
0.25-0.35
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Regarding claim 12, Hirozawa discloses the RTB-based permanent magnet material further satisfies any one of the following conditions:
(1) the content of O is 0.0382-0.07 wt. %;
(2) the RTB-based permanent magnet material further comprises nitrogen element N, the content of N is < 0.05 wt.%, the percentage refers to the mass percentage in the RTB-based permanent magnet material;
(3) R' further comprises Nd (9Pr-6Nd); or, R' further comprises R, R is a rare earth element besides Pr and Nd (Table 1 No. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Hirozawa discloses the RTB-based permanent magnet material further satisfies any one of the following conditions:
(1) the content of C is 0.106-0.25 wt.%; the content of B is 0.94 -1.1 wt.%; the content of Fe is 61.4-69.3 wt.%;
(2) the content of C is 0.106-0.25 wt.%; the content of B is 0.94-1.1 wt.%; the content of Fe is 61.4-69.3 wt.%; X is the combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr, then the content of Cu is 0.2-0.51 wt.%, the content of Al is 0-0.81 wt.% but not 0, the content of Ga is 1.402 wt.%-1.85 wt.%, the content of Co is 2.491-3 wt.%, the content of Zr is 0.25-0.35 wt.%;
(3) the content of C is 0.106-0.25 wt.%; the content of B is 0.94-1.1 wt.%; the content of Fe is 61.4-69.3 wt.%; X is Nb, then the content of Nb is 0.25-0.35 wt.% (9Pr-6Nd-77Fe-8B with up to 4 at% C replacing B and up to 9.5 at% Nb) (p. 3 para. 2, Table 1 No. 3);
(4) the content of C is 0.106-0.25 wt.%; the content of B is 0.94-1.1 wt.%; X is the combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr, then the content of Cu is 0.34-0.51 wt.%, the content of Al is 0-0.81 wt.% but not 0, the content of Ga is 1.402 wt.%-1.85 wt.%, the content of Co is 2.491-3 wt.%, the content of Zr is 0.25-0.35 wt.%.
The Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa is modified to replace the 8 at% B with up to 4 at% C and to replace the 77 at% Fe with up to 9.5 at% Nb (p. 3 para. 2). As presented in the following table, the resulting modified alloy of Hirozawa overlaps with that claimed. An example of a composition of the modified Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa that also falls within the scope of the claim is also presented. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 17 (3) wt%
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 Modified wt% (at%)
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 Modified Ex. wt% (at%)
R’
29.5-33.5
32.7
(15)
32.7
(15)
Pr
14.148-27.15
19.425
(9)
19.424
(9)
C
0.106-0.25
0.699 max
(4 max)
0.24
(1.3)
O
≤ 0.07
-
-
B
0.94-1.1
0.629-1.3
(4-8)
1.1
(6.7)
Fe
61.4-69.3
54.8-66.0
(67.5-77)
65.7
(76.8)
X one or more of
Ga
1.274-1.552
-
-
Nb
0.25-0.35
12.83 max
(9.5 max)
0.28
(0.2)
Cu
Al
Ga
Co
Zr
0.2-0.51
0-0.81
1.402-1.85
2.491-3
0.25-0.35
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Regarding claim 34, Hirozawa discloses X is Nb, then the content of Nb is 0.25-0.35 wt.% (up to 9.5 at% Nb, up to 12.83 wt% Nb) (p. 3 para. 2). As presented in the claim 1 and claim 17 rejections, example compositions that satisfy 0.25-0.35 wt% Nb are within the scope of the disclosure of the modified Table 1 No. 3 alloy of Hirozawa. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 35, Hirozawa discloses the content of B is 0.958 wt.%-1.2 wt.% (B is replaced with up to 4 at% C, where the resulting B content of 0.629-1.3 wt% overlaps with that claimed) (p. 3 para. 2, Table 1 No. 3). As presented in the claim 1 and claim 17 rejections, example compositions that satisfy 0.958-1.2 wt% B are within the scope of the disclosure of the modified Table 1 No. 3 alloy of Hirozawa. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 36, the Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa includes 9Pr-6Nd, such that it is 100% R1 with 60% Pr.
Hirozawa discloses R' also comprises a heavy rare earth element RH (Tb); wherein, the content of RH is 1.212 wt.-2.6 wt.% (10-30 at% R, where rare earth element R consists of 80% or more R1 of 40% or more and balance Pr and R2 is 40% or more Tb) (para. spanning pp. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the example of Hirozawa to include Tb as disclosed to significantly improve magnetic anisotropy (p. 3 para. 1). Modifying the example of Hirozawa as disclosed to include Tb as presented in the following table results in a composition that overlaps with that claimed. An example of a composition of the modified Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa that also falls within the scope of the claim is also presented. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 36 wt%
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 Tb Modified wt% (at%)
Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3 Tb Modified Ex. wt% (at%)
R’
29.5-33.5
31.5-32.7
(15)
32.9
(15)
Pr
14.148-27.15
14.65-19.45
(80% of 9 min)
18.08
(8.4)
RH
1.212-2.6
Tb: 7.3 max
(20% of 15 max)
1
(2.4)
C
0.106-0.25
0.69 max
(4 max)
0.20
(1.1)
O
≤ 0.07
-
-
B
0.94-1.1
0.62-1.3
(4-8)
1.14
(6.9)
Fe
61.4-69.3
54.4-66.0
(67.5-77)
65.5
(76.8)
X one or more of
Ga
1.274-1.552
-
Nb
0.25-0.35
12.75 max
(9.5 max)
0.28
(0.2)
Cu
Al
Ga
Co
Zr
0.2-0.51
0-0.81
1.402-1.85
2.491-3
0.25-0.35
-
-
-
-
-
Regarding claim 37, the Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa includes 9Pr-6Nd, such that it is 100% R1 with 60% Pr.
Hirozawa discloses R' comprising Tb; wherein, the content of Tb is 1.212-2.0wt.% (10-30 at% R, where rare earth element R consists of 80% or more R1 of 40% or more and balance Pr and R2 is 40% or more Tb) (para. spanning pp. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the example of Hirozawa to include Tb as disclosed to significantly improve magnetic anisotropy (p. 3 para. 1). Modifying the example of Hirozawa as disclosed for R to include a maximum of 20% of Tb as presented in the previous table results in a composition that overlaps with that claimed. An example of a composition of the modified Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa that also falls within the scope of the claim is also presented. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 38, Hirozawa discloses the content of R' is 31.013 wt.%-33.5wt.% (32.7 wt%, 9 at% Pr and 6 at% Nd is 19.425 wt% Pr and 13.275 wt% Nd) (Table 1 No. 3).
Regarding claim 39, Hirozawa discloses the content of C is 0.1759 wt.% - 0.26 wt.% (replace 8 at% B with up to 4 at% C has a maximum of 0.699 wt% C, with the above tables showing example compositions that satisfy both Hirozawa and claim 39) (p. 3 para. 2, Table 1 No. 3). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 40, Hirozawa discloses when X is Nb (p. 3 para. 2). Claim 40 only further limits “when the X is Ga” and “when the X is the combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr”. However claim 40 does not require X to be Ga or a combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr, such that Hirozawa reads on claim 40.
Regarding claim 41, Hirozawa discloses the content of B is 1.008 wt. %-1.2 wt.% (8 at% B replaced with up to 4 at% C is 0.629-1.3 wt% B). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirozawa (JP S61-243153 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miwa 2015 (US 2015/0170810).
Regarding claim 31, Hirozawa discloses a main phase and a grain boundary phase (p.2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 4 para. 1).
The intergranular triangle region and the percentage of the volume of the intergranular triangle region to the sum of the volume of the main phase, the grain boundary phase and the intergranular triangle region being ≤ 9.0% has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed RTB-based permanent magnet that results from the composition of claim 1 processed as disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0103]-[0131]). The process of Hirozawa is present in the following table (p. 4 para. 1).
Applicant’s Disclosure
Applicant’s Citation
Hirozawa’s Disclosure p. 4 para. 1
Conventional melting
[0103]
High-frequency melt
Conventional casting
[0104]
Cast
Conventional hydrogen decrepitation
[0105]-[0107]
-
Conventional pulverization
[0108]-[0110]
Pulverized
During pulverization oxygen content is 0 to 50 ppm
[0111]
-
Routinely added dispersant
[0112]-[0115]
-
Pressing atmosphere oxygen content is 10 to 30 ppm
[0116]
-
Conventional forming process
[0117]
Inserted into mold and pressed
Conventional sintering process
[0118]-[0122]
Sintered
Preferred conventional grain boundary treatment
[0124]-[0128]
Age at 800°C for 1 hour
Aging 500 to 650°C with heating rate of 3 to 5°C/min for 3 hours
[0129]-[0131]
Age at 630°C for 1.5 hours
Hirozawa is silent to the oxygen content of the atmosphere during pulverizing and pressing.
Miwa 2015 discloses an RTB-based permanent magnet material ([0001]) manufactured with a pulverization atmosphere oxygen content of 0 to 50 ppm (100 ppm or less) and a pressing atmosphere oxygen content of 10 to 30 ppm (100 ppm or less) ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Hirozawa to control the oxygen in the atmosphere to 100 ppm or less during pulverizing and pressing to control the O content in the magnet so that the corrosion resistant is sufficient and a liquid phase sufficiently forms in the sintered magnet (Miwa 2015 [0033]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The composition (Hirozawa Table 1 No. 3, p. 3 para. 2) and process (Hirozawa p. 4 para. 1; Miwa 2015 [0061]) of the prior art are substantially similar to the composition of claim 1 and the process disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed product, such that an intergranular triangle region and the percentage of the volume of the intergranular triangle region to the sum of the volume of the main phase, the grain boundary phase and the intergranular triangle region being ≤ 9.0% naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirozawa (JP S61-243153 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishiyama (US 2017/0250013).
Regarding claim 40, Hirozawa is silent to when the X is Ga, then the content of Ga is 1.506 wt.%-1.552 wt.%; when the X is the combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr, then the content of Cu is 0.2-0.51 wt.%, the content of Al is 0-0.81 wt.% but not 0, the content of Ga is 1.552 wt.%-1.85 wt.%, the content of Co is 2.491-3 wt.%, the content of Zr is 0.25-0.35 wt.%.
Ishiyama discloses an RTB-based permanent magnet material ([0002], [0015]) that comprises Ga of 1.506-1.552 wt% (0.40 to 1.80 mass%) ([0025], [0040], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa to include 0.40 to 1.80 mass% Ga to obtain high coercivity (Ishiyama [0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 42, Hirozawa is silent to X being one of the following conditions (1)-(2): (1) Ga; (2) a combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr; provided that: when the X is Ga, then the content of Ga is 1.274 wt.%-1.552 wt.%; when the X is the combination of Cu, Al, Ga, Co and Zr, then the content of Cu is 0.2-0.51 wt.%, the content of Al is 0-0.81 wt.% but not 0, the content of Ga is 1.402 wt.%-1.85 wt.%, the content of Co is 2.491-3 wt.%, the content of Zr is 0.25-0.35 wt.%.
Ishiyama discloses an RTB-based permanent magnet material ([0002], [0015]) that comprises Ga of 1.506-1.552 wt% (0.40 to 1.80 mass%) ([0025], [0040], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Table 1 No. 3 example of Hirozawa to include 0.40 to 1.80 mass% Ga to obtain high coercivity (Ishiyama [0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Related Art
Miwa 2016 (US 2016/0225502)
Miwa discloses an R-T-B based sintered magnet ([0010]) with main phase grains and R-Ga-C concentrated part in the grain boundary formed between or among two or more adjacent main phase grains ([0011], [0046]) with an overlapping composition ([0031]-[0045]) manufactured by preparing, pulverizing, mixing, pressing, sintering, aging, and grain boundary diffusion ([0051]-[0077]).
Fujiwara (JP 2014-027268 machine translation)
Fujiwara discloses an R-T-B based sintered magnet ([0001]) with an overlapping composition including R of Pr, B, Al, Cu, Co, Ga, C, O, Zr, and Fe ([0008]-[0009], [0013]-[0032]).
Tomizawa (US 2008/0274009)
Tomizawa discloses an RTB-based permanent magnet material ([0003]) that comprises Tb ([0022], [0024], [0027]) at 6 at% or less to increase the coercivity without lowering remanence and increasing cost ([0046]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735