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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed May 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Lawin et al. in view of Kaneda (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite wherein the hydrophobized silica particles comprise silica gel or precipitated silica. Lawin is silent towards wherein the silica particles comprise silica gel or precipitated silica. However, after further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lawin et al. in view of Kaneda (cited in the previous Office Action) and Bleecher (US20150030779, hereinafter referred to as “Bleecher”). Bleecher teaches a related superhydrophobic coating composition comprising a binder and hydrophobized particles dispersed therein ([0019] and [0145]). Bleecher further teaches that the particles may be silica particles ([0147]) hydrophobized via silanizing agents and sourced from fumed silica (e.g., CAB-O-SIL TS-720) or the commercial product Nanogel TLD201 (e.g., a silica gel) ([0155]). The composition of Lawin uses the commercial product CAB-O-SIL TS 720 ([0107]). As Bleecher teaches that fumed silica (e.g., CAB-O-SIL TS-720) and silica gel are both recognized within the art as known hydrophobized silica additives for hydrophobic coating compositions, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that substituting the fumed silica component of Lawin with a silica gel component, such as that taught by Bleecher, would predictably confer comparable hydrophobic properties to fumed silica in coating compositions. It has been found that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.06 II.
Applicant also argues that the instant claims are not obvious in view of Lawin and Kaneda (cited in the previous Office Action) because the claimed invention leads to unexpected advantages, specifically with regard to the claimed pore diameter of about 100 Å or more which Applicant suggests unexpectedly influences superhydrophobic performance (Table 5 of the instant specification). It is noted that “whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support” (see MPEP 716.02(d)). In this instant case, it would appear that the claimed coating composition is not commensurate in scope with the examples presented in Table 5, which Applicant alleges support the finding that pore diameters greater than 100 Å unexpectedly improve hydrophobic and film properties. Specifically, the examples in Table 5 appear to be based on a coating composition comprising one binder system (i.e., a fluoroelastomer system) and one hydrophobizing agent (C18), while the claimed coating composition is open to a broader selection of the same. Furthermore, the claimed range for a pore diameter is open to all pore diameters above 100 Å, while the largest pore diameter presented within the examples is 298 Å. “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)” (see MPEP 716.02(d) III). Accordingly, it is the position of the Office that the alleged unexpected results are not sufficient to overcome the rejection of record.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered fully responded to within the comments above and rejections below.
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 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 16-20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawin et al. (US 2008/0268233, hereinafter referred to as “Lawin”) in view of Kaneda (JP2003171577, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kaneda”) and Bleecher (US20150030779, hereinafter referred to as “Bleecher”).
As to Claim 1: Lawin teaches a super hydrophobic coating composition ([0022]) comprising silica particles that may be treated to promote hydrophobicity ([0012]) (i.e., hydrophobized silica particles), a binder that is film forming ([0012] and [0032]), and a solvent ([0101]). Lawin does not teach a weight ratio of hydrophobized silica particle to film-forming binder within the claimed range. However, Lawin teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the weight ratio of particle to binder would control the ultimate properties of the composition and further that said weight ratio of particle to binder is varied depending on the density of the particle used ([0028]). As such, it would have been considered to be a result effective variable by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Lawin is considered analogous art because it concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions comprising hydrophobized silica. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the weight ratio hydrophobized silica particle to film-forming binder through routine experimentation, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Lawin suggests, to said weight ratio controls the ultimate material properties of the composition.
Lawin teaches that the hydrophobized silica particles may comprise porous silica particles, but is silent towards the pore diameter.
Kaneda teaches a surface-treated inorganic oxide having water repellency ([0001]) suitable for coating materials ([0025]) comprising a porous inorganic oxide which may be silica that may be hydrophobized ([0007]) having a mean pore size from 1 to 50 nm ([0010]) (i.e., 10 to 500 Å), which overlaps with the claimed range for a pore diameter. Lawin and Kaneda are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, hydrophobic/water repellant compositions comprising porous silica. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a porous hydrophobized silica having a mean pore size within the claimed range, at least up to 500 Å, such as that taught by Kaneda, within the super hydrophobic coating composition taught by Lawin because Lawin teaches that the hydrophobized silica particles may comprise porous silica particles and Kaneda teaches that silica particles having a pore size of up to 500 Å are useful for coating compositions having water repellency (i.e., hydrophobicity).
Lawin further teaches that uncoated silica particles may be reacted with silanes (e.g., alkanesilanes) having at least one reactive group that reacts with functional groups on the silica particle surface ([0108-0111]). Lawin further teaches that the silane may be heptadecafluorodecyltrichlorosilane ([0108]), which exhibits a molecular weight within the claimed range (581 g/mol).
Lawin is silent towards wherein the hydrophobized silica particles comprise silica gel or precipitated silica.
Bleecher teaches a related superhydrophobic coating composition comprising a binder and hydrophobized particles dispersed therein ([0019] and [0145]). Bleecher further teaches that the particles may be silica particles ([0147]) hydrophobized via silanizing and sourced from fumed silica (e.g., CAB-O-SIL TS-720) or the commercial product Nanogel TLD201 (e.g., a silica gel) ([0155]). The composition of Lawin uses the commercial product CAB-O-SIL TS 720 ([0107]). Lawin and Bleecher are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, hydrophobic coating compositions comprising at least a hydrophobized silica component. As Bleecher teaches that fumed silica (e.g., CAB-O-SIL TS-720) and silica gel are both recognized within the art as known hydrophobized silica additives for hydrophobic coating compositions, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that substituting the fumed silica component of Lawin with a silica gel component, such as that taught by Bleecher, would predictably confer comparable hydrophobic properties to coating compositions comprising the same. It has been found that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.06 II.
As to Claim 3: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin further teaches that the composition may comprise a solvent ([0101]) and teaches exemplary solvents which include tetrahydrofuran ([0216]) (i.e., an organic solvent).
As to Claims 4 and 5: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin is silent towards the surface area of the porous silica particles.
Kaneda teaches that the inorganic oxide that may be silica has a specific surface area of 1 to 1000 m2/g, and more preferably 10 to 700 m2/g ([0010]), which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a porous hydrophobized silica having a surface area within the claimed range, such as from 10 to 700 m2/g, such as that taught by Kaneda, within the super hydrophobic coating composition taught by Lawin because Lawin teaches that the hydrophobized silica particles may comprise porous silica particles and Kaneda teaches that silica particles having a surface area of 10 to 700 m2/g are useful for coating compositions having water repellency (i.e., hydrophobicity).
As to Claim 9: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 8 (supra).
Lawin further teaches that the silane may have an alkyl chain length of from about 1 to about 20 and that the silane may be a fluoroalkylsilane ([0108]). A silane having an analogous structure to that of the exemplary fluoroalkylsilane of Lawin (heptadecafluorodecyltrichlorosilane) with a chain length of 20 would exhibit a molecular weight within the claimed range (1158 g/mol).
As to Claim 11 and 16: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 8 (supra).
Lawin further teaches that the particles can be treated with polydimethylsiloxane to increase hydrophobicity (i.e., a hydrophobic silane) ([0106-0107]).
As to Claim 17: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin further teaches that the binder may comprise polymers prepared at least from C2-C24 olefins, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers having C2-C36 alkyl groups, vinyl esters having 2 to 36 carbon atoms, and natural and synthetic waxes ([0036-0048]).
As to Claim 18 and 19: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin further teaches that the binder may be a fluorinated polyalkylene binder comprising a polymer prepared from fluoroolefins including tetrafluoroethylene ([0042]) (i.e., a monomer wherein polymerization results in the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene).
As to Claim 20 and 22: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 18 (supra).
Lawin further teaches that the binder may be crosslinked ([0058]) and teaches various exemplary compositions comprising a cross-linker (e.g., Example 1, [0218]), wherein crosslinking would result in a gel network structure of the binder polymer and solvent (i.e., a gelation agent).
As to Claim 25: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin does not explicitly teach a range for the weight % of binder present, however, Lawin does teach exemplary compositions comprising a binder in a weight % within the claimed range (e.g., Example 1, [0216] comprises ~ 4 wt% of polyisobutylmethacrylate (i.e., a binder)).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawin et al. (US 2008/0268233, hereinafter referred to as “Lawin”) in view of Kaneda (JP2003171577, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kaneda”) and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2010/0126387, hereinafter referred to as “Meyer”).
As to Claim 4 and 5: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin is silent towards the BET surface area of the porous silica particles.
Meyer teaches a related coating composition comprising hydrophobic fumed silica (Abstract), a binder ([0045]), and a solvent ([0040]). Meyer further teaches that the BET surface area of the silica is within the range of 150 to 350 m2/g, which is within the claimed range. Lawin, Kaneda, and Meyer are considered analogous art because they are directed towards coating compositions comprising hydrophobized silica having hydrophobic properties. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a hydrophobized silica having a BET surface area within the claimed range, at least within the range of 150 to 350 m2/g ([0034]) for the silica particles taught by Lawin as modified by Kaneda because Meyer teaches that this is a known range for BET surface area of hydrophobized silica for use in hydrophobic coating compositions and furthermore because Meyer teaches that the surface area of silica particles determines their agglomeration behavior ([0004]), which is an important consideration for application in coatings ([0007]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawin et al. (US 2008/0268233, hereinafter referred to as “Lawin”) in view of Kaneda (JP2003171577, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kaneda”) and further in view of Walsh et al. (US 2007/0027232, hereinafter referred to as “Walsh”).
As to Claim 23: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin is silent towards the binder comprising an aqueous wax emulsion or an aqueous emulsion of a hydrophobic polymer, but teaches that the solvent may be a non-reactive solvent ([0101]) (i.e., including water).
Walsh teaches a related coating composition comprising a binder, a plurality of hydrophobic silica particles, a solvent (Abstract), wherein the coating composition may be water-based and further comprise water ([0010]). Lawin, Kaneda, and Walsh as considered analogous art because they are directed towards coating compositions comprising hydrophobic silica particles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include water as the non-reactive solvent or in addition to a solvent within the composition of Lawin because Walsh teaches that water is a known additive to compositions comprising at least hydrophobic silica particles and a binder for coating applications, and the motivation would have been that water is a non-toxic solvent and may lessen the environmental impact of the solvent relative to organic solvents.
Lawin, Kaneda, and Walsh are silent towards an aqueous emulsion of a hydrophobic polymer. However, various binder resins taught by Lawin and Walsh are known within the art to exhibit hydrophobic character (e.g., fluorinated polymers are used as binders within Lawin ([0042])). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of water as a solvent within the composition of Lawin (as motivated above from Walsh) would form a dispersion of insoluble polymer within the medium of water, which reads on the claimed aqueous emulsion of a hydrophobic polymer.
As to Claim 24: Lawin, Kaneda, and Walsh teach the coating composition of claim 23 (supra).
Lawin does not teach wherein the coating composition is prepared by the claimed steps. However, the instant claims are product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113. Lawin as modified by Kaneda and Walsh teaches the claimed coating composition, and there is no evidence that the claimed steps would materially affect the structure of the final product/composition.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawin et al. (US 2008/0268233, hereinafter referred to as “Lawin”) in view of Kaneda (JP2003171577, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kaneda”) and further in view of Walsh et al. (US 2007/0027232, hereinafter referred to as “Walsh”) and Deeter et al. (US 2020/0299902, hereinafter referred to as “Deeter”).
As to Claim 23: Lawin and Kaneda teach the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Lawin is silent towards the binder comprising an aqueous wax emulsion or an aqueous emulsion of a hydrophobic polymer, but teaches that the solvent may be a non-reactive solvent ([0101]) (i.e., including water).
Walsh teaches a related coating composition comprising a binder, a plurality of hydrophobic silica particles, a solvent (Abstract), wherein the coating composition may be water-based and further comprise water ([0010]). Lawin, Kaneda, and Walsh as considered analogous art because they are directed towards coating compositions comprising hydrophobic silica particles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include water as the non-reactive solvent or in addition to a solvent within the composition of Lawin because Walsh teaches that water is a known additive to compositions comprising at least hydrophobic silica particles and a binder for coating applications, and the motivation would have been that water is a non-toxic solvent and may lessen the environmental impact of the solvent relative to organic solvents.
Lawin, Kaneda, and Walsh are silent towards the composition comprising an aqueous wax emulsion.
Deeter teaches an aqueous water barrier binder comprising an aqueous polymer dispersion, a hydrophobic emulsion, and a surfactant (Abstract). Deeter further teaches that the hydrophobic emulsion may be a wax emulsion including paraffin, and that the surfactant may comprise an anionic surfactant ([0003]) (i.e., analogous to the wax emulsion according to the instant specification para. [0090]). Lawin, Kaneda, Walsh, and Deeter are considered analogous art because they are directed towards coating compositions comprising binders for providing hydrophobic or water barrier properties. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the wax emulsion binder of Deeter as the binder within Lawin as modified by Kaneda and Walsh to arrive at the claimed composition because Deeter teaches that wax emulsion are binders/binder components known for use in coatings that exhibit water barrier properties while imparting no substrate damage (Abstract of Deeter).
As to Claim 24: Lawin, Kaneda, Walsh and Deeter teach the coating composition of claim 23 (supra).
Lawin does not teach wherein the coating composition is prepared by the claimed steps. However, the instant claims are product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113. Lawin as modified by Kaneda and Walsh teaches the claimed coating composition, and there is no evidence that the claimed steps would materially affect the structure of the final product/composition.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawin et al. (US 2008/0268233, hereinafter referred to as “Lawin”) in view of Kaneda (JP2003171577, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kaneda”) and further in view of Kangasabapathy et al. (US 2009/0018249, hereinafter referred to as “Kangasabapathy”).
As to Claim 26: Lawin and Kaneda teach the coating composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lawin teaches the composition may be applied via spray coating ([0102]), but is silent towards the composition being in the form of aerosol further comprising at least one propellant.
Kangasabapathy teaches a related hydrophobic coating composition ([0008]) comprising hydrophobized silica particles (i.e., treated fumed silica) and a solvent ([0008]). Kangasabapathy further teaches that the coating composition may be in the form of an aerosol comprising an aerosol propellant ([0020]). Lawin, Kaneda, and Kangasabapathy are considered analogous art because they are directed towards coating compositions comprising functionalized/hydrophobized silica particles having hydrophobic properties. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition of Lawin as modified by Kaneda in the form of an aerosol further comprising at least one propellant because Kangasabapathy teaches that applying compositions comprising at least hydrophobized silica particles as an aerosol comprising an aerosol propellant is a known method within the art and allows for deposition of fine droplets of the composition onto a surface to effectively merge to form a thin continuous transparent film coating having hydrophobic properties ([0093]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawin et al. (US 2008/0268233, hereinafter referred to as “Lawin”) in view of Kaneda (JP2003171577, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kaneda”).
As to Claim 32: Lawin teaches a super hydrophobic coating composition ([0022]) comprising silica particles that may be treated to promote hydrophobicity ([0012]) (i.e., hydrophobized silica particles), a binder that is film forming ([0012] and [0032]), and a solvent ([0101]). Lawin does not teach a weight ratio of hydrophobized silica particle to film-forming binder within the claimed range. However, Lawin teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the weight ratio of particle to binder would control the ultimate properties of the composition and further that said weight ratio of particle to binder is varied depending on the density of the particle used ([0028]). As such, it would have been considered to be a result effective variable by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Lawin is considered analogous art because it concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions comprising hydrophobized silica. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the weight ratio hydrophobized silica particle to film-forming binder through routine experimentation, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Lawin suggests, to said weight ratio controls the ultimate material properties of the composition.
Lawin teaches that the hydrophobized silica particles may comprise porous silica particles, but is silent towards the pore diameter.
Kaneda teaches a surface-treated inorganic oxide having water repellency ([0001]) suitable for coating materials ([0025]) comprising a porous inorganic oxide which may be silica that may be hydrophobized ([0007]) having a mean pore size from 1 to 50 nm ([0010]) (i.e., 10 to 500 Å), which overlaps with the claimed range for a pore diameter. Lawin and Kaneda are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, hydrophobic/water repellant compositions comprising porous silica. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a porous hydrophobized silica having a mean pore size within the claimed range, at least up to 500 Å, such as that taught by Kaneda, within the super hydrophobic coating composition taught by Lawin because Lawin teaches that the hydrophobized silica particles may comprise porous silica particles and Kaneda teaches that silica particles having a pore size of up to 500 Å are useful for coating compositions having water repellency (i.e., hydrophobicity).
Lawin further teaches that the particle which may be silica has a particle size of between about 1 nm and about 25 µm ([0104]), which overlaps with the claimed range. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where 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). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Lawin suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useful range for the particle size of a silica particle within a superhydrophobic coating composition.
Lawin is silent towards the surface area of the porous silica particles.
Kaneda teaches that the inorganic oxide that may be silica has a specific surface area of 1 to 1000 m2/g, and more preferably 10 to 700 m2/g ([0010]), which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a porous hydrophobized silica having a surface area within the claimed range, such as from 10 to 700 m2/g, such as that taught by Kaneda, within the super hydrophobic coating composition taught by Lawin because Lawin teaches that the hydrophobized silica particles may comprise porous silica particles and Kaneda teaches that silica particles having a surface area of 10 to 700 m2/g are useful for coating compositions having water repellency (i.e., hydrophobicity).
Lawin further teaches that uncoated silica particles may be reacted with silanes (e.g., alkanesilanes) having at least one reactive group that reacts with functional groups on the silica particle surface ([0108-0111]). Lawin further teaches that the silane may be heptadecafluorodecyltrichlorosilane ([0108]), which exhibits a molecular weight within the claimed range (581 g/mol).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767