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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 03/23/2026.
Claims 1-5, 8-17 and 19 are currently pending, of which claims 12-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 19 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 8, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisele (US 6,001,902 A) in view of Dangayach (US 5,284,938 A) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisele (US 6,001,902 A) in view of Dangayach (US 5,284,938 A), and further in view of Beiseleˈ567 (US 6,638,567 B1) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisele (US 6,001,902 A) in view of Dangayach (US 5,284,938 A) and Beiseleˈ567 (US 6,638,567 B1), and further as evidenced by “BYK-W 9010” (Product Data of BYK-W 9010, 2015) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
The independent claim recites a system comprising "(a) a resin component" and "(b) a hardener component", each with a set of elements. While Applicant recites two sub-systems as two components constituting the full system/composition, for purposes of claim interpretation the two components are extended little patentable weight because the entirety of the system/composition ultimately comprises both components as one, single system. In other words, claim 1's system is interpreted as a composition comprising at least one epoxy resin, a block-copolymer comprising silicone and organic blocks, a silane, a filler comprising aluminium oxide and wollastonite, at least one polyoxyalkylene polyamine, and at least one additional additive selected from an anti-settling agent, a colouring agent, fumed silica and fumed alumina, and the recited ratio/concentration, which is merely the total sum of the component (a) and the component (b). The component (a) and the component (b) while comprised in a single system are not patentably discrete from one another in said single system.
Furthermore, claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites “the resin component (a) and the hardener component (b) comprise different fillers”. Thus, claim 19's system is interpreted as a composition comprising at least one epoxy resin, a block-copolymer comprising silicone and organic blocks, a silane, at least one polyoxyalkylene polyamine, at least one additional additive selected from an anti-settling agent, a colouring agent, fumed silica and fumed alumina, and a filler comprising aluminium oxide, wollastonite, and another type of filler which is different from aluminium oxide and wollastonite, and the recited ratio/concentration, which is merely the total sum of the component (a) and the component (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1-5, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisele (US 6,001,902 A, hereinafter Beisele) in view of Dangayach (US 5,284,938 A, hereinafter Dangayach).
Regarding claim 1, Beisele teaches (col. 1, ll. 31-48; claim 1) a curable mixture comprising:
component (a) comprising an epoxy resin (col. 1, ll. 34-38; );
component (b) comprising polyoxyalkyleneamines such as polyoxyalkylenediamine and/or polyoxyalkylenetriamine (col. 3, ll. 9-12), which does not comprise any anhydride, and reads on the claimed polyoxyalkylene polyamine;
component (c) an inorganic filler comprising more than 50% by weight of wollastonite, based on the total amount of the inorganic filler (col. 5, ll. 38-45); and
component (e) additives (col. 5, ll. 56-67; col. 6, ll. 1-2).
Beisele teaches that the inorganic filler can comprise aluminum oxide (col. 5, ll. 38-41). Thus, component (c) an inorganic filler as taught by Beisele can comprise more than 50% by weight of wollastonite, less than 50% by weight of aluminum oxide, based on the total amount of the inorganic filler, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “50 to 75 wt% wollastonite” and “25 to 50 wt% aluminium oxide”.
Beisele teaches that component (c) an inorganic filler is preferably in an amount of more than 50% by weight and less than 65% by weight, based on the total amount of the components in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 50-55), which overlaps with the claimed range of “> 60 wt% filler”.
Beisele teaches that component (e) can comprise additives such as filler/resin adhesion promoters (col. 5, ll. 56-67). Beisele specifically teaches that the mixture contains γ-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (col. 6, ll. 30-32; Example 1), which reads on the claimed silane. Beisele also teaches that γ-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (the claimed silane) is in an amount of about 0.3 wt.% in a mixture comprising an epoxy resin, a silane and fillers (Example 1; col. 6, 28-41), which falls within the claimed range of “between 0.01 wt.% and 4 wt.%”.
Beisele further teaches that component (e) can comprise additives such as a pigment (col. 5, ll. 59-60), which reads on the claimed colouring agent.
Beisele further teaches that the curable mixture is used as casting resin composition for encapsulating electrical or electronic components (col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Beisele does not teach a block-copolymer comprising silicone and organic blocks.
However, Dangayach teaches a composition suitable for use as encapsulates for semiconductor devices (col. 1, ll. 12-17), and the composition comprises an epoxy resin, a curing agent for the epoxy resin, a polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer, and a filler (col. 2, ll. 21-24). Dangayach teaches that the curing agent for the epoxy resin is preferably a polyamine (col. 5, ll. 23-30).
Dangayach also teaches that the polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer provides improved toughness, lower modulus, and better processability to the epoxy resin composition (col. 4, ll. 64-68; col. 5, ll. 3-6). The polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer as taught by Dangayach reads on the claimed block-copolymer comprising silicone and organic blocks.
Dangayach also teaches that the polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer is in an amount of about 1 to about 50 weight percent based on the weight of the epoxy resin (col. 4, 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a curable mixture comprising an epoxy resin, polyoxyalkyleneamines, an inorganic filler comprising wollastonite and aluminum oxide, additives comprising γ-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane and a pigment as taught by Beisele, further comprising a polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer as taught by Dangayach, wherein the polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer is in an amount of about 1 to about 50 weight percent based on the weight of the epoxy resin. For doing so, the polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer would provide improved toughness, lower modulus, and better processability to the curable epoxy mixture which is used as an encapsulate for electrical or electronic components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, Beisele teaches that component (b) a curing agent (i.e. polyoxyalkyleneamines) is in an amount of from 1 to 40 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of component (a) epoxy resin (col. 5, ll. 34-36); component (c) an inorganic filler is in an amount of more than 50% by weight and less than 65% by weight based on the total amount of the components in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 50-55); component (e) additives (e.g. silane, pigment) are in an amount of less than 10% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 57-60; col. 5, ll. 64-67; col. 6, ll. 1-2; claim 1).
Thus, in the curable mixture as taught by the combination of Beisele and Dangayach, the polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer can be in an amount of about 0.3% to 17% by weight based on the total amount of epoxy resin, fillers, additives such as silane, and polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer, which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.3 wt% to 10 wt%”.
In the curable mixture as taught by the combination of Beisele and Dangayach, inorganic fillers can be in an amount of from 140 to 260 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of an epoxy resin; additives (e.g. silane, pigment) can be in an amount of more than 0 to 44 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of an epoxy resin.
Furthermore, Beisele teaches that all the components (i.e. an epoxy resin, a curing agent, inorganic fillers, additives) are mixed together to form a curable mixture (Example 1; col. 6, ll. 28-48).
Therefore, in the curable mixture as taught by the combination of Beisele and Dangayach, the mass ratio of the resin component (a) (which comprises an epoxy resin, polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer, a silane, and fillers) to the hardener component (b) (which comprises a curing agent (i.e. polyoxyalkyleneamines) and fillers) can be 100 pbw resin component (a) to 40 to 80 pbw hardener component (b), which overlaps with the claimed range of “100 pbw resin component (a) to 50 to 100 pbw hardener component (b)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Beisele teaches (col. 1, ll. 31-48; col. 3, ll. 9-12; col. 5, ll. 38-41) a curable mixture comprising component (a) comprising an epoxy resin, component (b) a curing agent comprising polyoxyalkyleneamines (e.g. polyoxyalkylenediamine, polyoxyalkylenetriamine), and component (c) an inorganic filler comprising wollastonite and aluminum oxide. Beisele also teaches that all the components are mixed together to form a curable mixture (Example 1; col. 6, ll. 28-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that component (b) a curing agent as taught by Beisele would comprise wollastonite and aluminum oxide filler, because all the components are mixed together to form a curable mixture as art recognized. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Beisele teaches a curable mixture comprising component (c) an inorganic filler, wherein component (c) an inorganic filler is preferably in an amount of more than 50% by weight and less than 65% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 51-55).
Beisele teaches a curable mixture comprising component (e) glass fibres and additives, wherein the amount of the glass fibres and additives is less than 10% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 57-60; col. 5, ll. 64-67; col. 6, ll. 1-2). Thus, the amount of the glass fibres as taught by Beisele is less than 10% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture. The total amount of the fillers comprising the inorganic fillers and the glass fibres as taught by Beisele is in an amount of more than 50% by weight and less than 75% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture, which overlaps with the claimed range of “> 70 wt% filler”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively regarding claim 3, Beisele teaches a curable mixture comprising component (c) an inorganic filler comprising wollastonite, wherein component (c) an inorganic filler is preferably in an amount of more than 50% by weight and less than 65% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 38-45, ll. 51-55). Please note, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123.
Beisele also teaches that containing wollastonite as a filler imparts good resistance to changing temperatures and less susceptibility to tearing for encapsulating electrical or electronic components (col. 1, ll. 23-30).
Furthermore, Dangayach teaches that in encapsulation applications, the composition will generally contain fillers in an amount of at least about 55 weight percent and not more than about 95 weight percent (col. 5, ll. 53-58), which overlaps with the claimed range of “> 70 wt% filler”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the total amount of inorganic filler comprising wollastonite higher than 65 wt.% in order to improve the resistance to changing temperatures and the resistance to tearing of the cast resin composition for sufficiently encapsulating the electronic components with a reasonable expectation of success, because containing wollastonite as a filler imparts good resistance to changing temperatures and less susceptibility to tearing for encapsulating electrical or electronic components as art recognized, and also the composition for encapsulation applications generally comprises fillers in an amount of at least about 55 weight percent and not more than about 95 weight percent as art recognized. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Beisele teaches a curable mixture comprising component (c) an inorganic filler, wherein component (c) an inorganic filler comprises more than 50% by weight of wollastonite based on the total amount of the inorganic filler (col. 5, ll. 38-45). Beisele teaches that the inorganic filler can comprise aluminum oxide (col. 5, ll. 38-41). Thus, component (c) an inorganic filler as taught by Beisele can comprise more than 50% by weight of wollastonite, less than 50% by weight of aluminum oxide, based on the total amount of the inorganic filler, which overlap with the claimed ranges of “60 to 70 wt% wollastonite” and “30 to 40 wt% aluminium oxide”.
Regarding claim 5, Beisele teaches that component (c) an inorganic filler comprises wollastonite and aluminum oxide (col. 5, ll. 38-45), and component (c) an inorganic filler preferably has a particle size of less than 50 μm (col. 5, ll. 51-55), which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 µm to 60 µm”.
Regarding claim 8, Beisele teaches (col. 1, ll. 31-48; col. 5, ll. 38-41) a curable mixture comprising component (a) epoxy resin, component (b) curing agents, and component (c) inorganic filler, and component (e) additives. Beisele teaches a curable mixture comprising component (b) curing agents comprising 60 to 100% by weight of a polyoxyalkylenediamine or polyoxyalkylenetriamine based on 100% by weight of component (b) (col. 1, ll. 39-42).
Beisele further teaches that all the components are mixed together to form a curable mixture (Example1; col. 6, ll. 28-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that component (b) would comprise fillers, then component (b) would comprise a polyoxyalkylenediamine or polyoxyalkylenetriamine in an amount of less than 60% by weight based on the total amount of component (b) which comprises curing agents and fillers, because all the components are mixed together to form a curable mixture as art recognized. Thus, component (b) comprising a polyoxyalkylenediamine or polyoxyalkylenetriamine in an amount of less than 60% by weight based on the total amount of component (b) which comprises curing agents and fillers, overlaps with the claimed range of “5 wt% to 50 wt%”. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in claim interpretation section, while Applicant recites two sub-systems as two components constituting the full system/composition, for purposes of claim interpretation the two components are extended little patentable weight because the entirety of the system/composition ultimately comprises both components (a) and (b) as one, single system. In other words, claim 19's system is interpreted as a composition comprising at least one epoxy resin, a block-copolymer comprising silicone and organic blocks, a silane, at least one polyoxyalkylene polyamine, at least one additional additive selected from an anti-settling agent, a colouring agent, fumed silica and fumed alumina, and a filler comprising aluminium oxide, wollastonite, and another type of filler which is different from aluminium oxide and wollastonite, and the recited ratio/concentration, which is merely the total sum of the component (a) and the component (b). The component (a) and the component (b) while comprised in a single system are not patentably discrete from one another in said single system.
Beisele teaches that the curable mixture comprises component (c) an inorganic filler (col. 1, ll. 31-48), wherein the inorganic filler can comprise wollastonite and aluminum oxide (col. 5, ll. 38-45). Beisele further teaches that the inorganic filler can also comprise other types of customary fillers, such as powdered glass (col. 5, ll. 38-41).
2. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisele (US 6,001,902 A, hereinafter Beisele) in view of Dangayach (US 5,284,938 A, hereinafter Dangayach) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, and 19 above, and further in view of Beiseleˈ567 (US 6,638,567 B1, hereinafter Beiseleˈ567).
The disclosure of Beisele in view of Dangayach is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Beisele teaches (col. 1, ll. 31-48; col. 5, ll. 38-45, 56-67) a curable mixture comprising component (a) comprising an epoxy resin, component (b) comprising curing agents, component (c) an inorganic filler comprising wollastonite and aluminum oxide, and component (e) additives. Beisele teaches that the additives are customary additives (col. 5, ll. 56-63).
Beisele also teaches that all the components are mixed together to form a curable mixture (Example1; col. 6, ll. 28-48). Beisele further teaches that the curable mixture is used as casting resin composition for encapsulating electrical or electronic components (col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Beisele and Dangayach do not teach a wetting agent.
However, Beiseleˈ567 teaches a curable composition as a casting resin for electrical components (col. 1, ll. 5-9). Beiseleˈ567 teaches that the curable composition comprises component (a) epoxy resin (col. 1, ll. 64-67; col. 2, ll. 1-2), component (b) curing agent (col. 2, ll. 1-2; col. 4, ll. 7-8), and component (c) fillers (col. 1, ll. 64-67; col. 2, ll. 1-2). Beiseleˈ567 teaches that the fillers can be aluminium oxide and wollastonite (col. 5, ll. 10-22). Beiseleˈ567 also teaches that the curable composition further comprises a wetting agent (col. 5, ll. 36-42), the wetting agent reduces the electrostatic interactive forces between resin and filler and the increased viscosity caused thereby (col. 5, ll. 36-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curable mixture comprising an epoxy resin, polyoxyalkyleneamines, an inorganic filler comprising wollastonite and aluminum oxide, silane, a pigment, and block copolymer as taught by Beisele and Dangayach, further comprising a wetting agent as taught by Beiseleˈ567. For doing so, the wetting agent would reduce the electrostatic interactive forces between resin and filler and the increased viscosity caused thereby with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that component (b) would comprise the wetting agent, because all the components are mixed together to form a curable mixture as art recognized. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Beisele teaches that component (b) a curing agent is used in an amount from 1 to 40 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of component (a) epoxy resin (col. 5, ll. 34-36).
Beiseleˈ567 teaches that the wetting agent is in an amount of about from 0.1 to 2.0% by weight based on the total amount of components (a) and (b) (col. 5, ll. 40-42), wherein component (a) is epoxy resin (col. 1, ll. 64-67; col. 2, ll. 1-2), component (b) is curing agent (col. 2, ll. 1-2; col. 4, ll. 7-8).
Thus, in the curable mixture as taught by the combination of Beisele, Dangayach and Beiseleˈ567, the wetting agent can be in an amount of from 0.4% to 7% by weight in component (b) which comprises curing agent, filler, and the wetting agent, which falls within the claimed range of “0.2 wt% to 10 wt%”.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisele (US 6,001,902 A, hereinafter Beisele) in view of Dangayach (US 5,284,938 A, hereinafter Dangayach) and Beiseleˈ567 (US 6,638,567 B1, hereinafter Beiseleˈ567) as applied to claims 9 and 11 above, and further as evidenced by “BYK-W 9010” (Product Data of BYK-W 9010, 2015, hereinafter “BYK-W 9010”).
The disclosure of Beisele in view of Dangayach and Beiseleˈ567 is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, the current invention discloses that BYK W 9010 is a wetting agent (instant para [0057]). Beiseleˈ567 also teaches that the curable composition further comprises a wetting and dispersing agent (col. 5, ll. 36-42). Beiseleˈ567 teaches that BYK W 9010 is a dispersing agent (col. 7, l. 6).
“BYK-W 9010” as an evidentiary reference shows that BYK W 9010 is a wetting and dispersing additive (p. 1, l. 1), and BYK W 9010 is a copolymer with acidic groups (p. 1, l. 3, § Composition). Thus, BYK W 9010 as taught by Beiseleˈ567 is a wetting and dispersing agent, and also reads on the claimed copolymer with acidic groups.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Beisele, Dangayach, Beisele'567, nor BYK-W 9010 individually or combined, disclose “the ratio of the resin component (a) to the hardener component (b) to be 100 pbw resin component (a) to 50 to 100 pbw hardener component (b)” in amended claim 1 (p. 6).
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Firstly, as discussed in claim 1 above, Dangayach teaches that the polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer is in an amount of about 1 to about 50 weight percent based on the weight of the epoxy resin (col. 4, 55-60).
Beisele teaches that component (b) a curing agent (i.e. polyoxyalkyleneamines) is in an amount of from 1 to 40 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of component (a) epoxy resin (col. 5, ll. 34-36); component (c) an inorganic filler is in an amount of more than 50% by weight and less than 65% by weight based on the total amount of the components in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 50-55); component (e) additives (e.g. silane, pigment) are in an amount of less than 10% by weight based on the total amount of the components present in the mixture (col. 5, ll. 57-60; col. 5, ll. 64-67; col. 6, ll. 1-2; claim 1).
Thus, in the curable mixture as taught by the combination of Beisele and Dangayach, inorganic fillers can be in an amount of from 140 to 260 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of an epoxy resin; additives (e.g. silane, pigment) can be in an amount of more than 0 to 44 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of an epoxy resin.
Furthermore, Beisele teaches that all the components (i.e. an epoxy resin, a curing agent, inorganic fillers, additives) are mixed together to form a curable mixture (Example 1; col. 6, ll. 28-48).
Therefore, in the curable mixture as taught by the combination of Beisele and Dangayach, the mass ratio of the resin component (a) (which comprises an epoxy resin, polylactone-polysiloxane block copolymer, a silane, and fillers) to the hardener component (b) (which comprises a curing agent (i.e. polyoxyalkyleneamines) and fillers) can be 100 pbw resin component (a) to 40 to 80 pbw hardener component (b), which overlaps with the claimed range of “100 pbw resin component (a) to 50 to 100 pbw hardener component (b)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Secondly, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fillers as taught by Beisele in any amount with the curing agent (i.e. polyoxyalkyleneamines) such that the total amount of the fillers falls within the Beisele’s suggested range of more than 50% and less than 65% by weight in the mixture, resulting in the mass ratio of the resin component (a) (which comprises an epoxy resin and fillers) to the hardener component (b) (which comprises a curing agent (i.e. polyoxyalkyleneamines) and fillers) that overlaps (or falls within) the claimed range of “100 pbw resin component (a) to 50 to 100 pbw hardener component (b)”, in order to form a curable mixture used as casting resin composition for encapsulating electrical or electronic components with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights