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 has been made FINAL.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims filed 30 April 2025 is as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 26, 28, 34, 45 and 50-51 and 63-65 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 26, 28, 34, 45 and 50-51 have hereby been examined.
Declaration/Affidavit 1.132 of Dr. Neal Wright
Items 1-16 state the credentials and experience of Dr. Neal Wright.
Items 17-18 state that Dr. Neal Wright has read and understands the prior art and the single independent claim (claim 1).
Items 19-22 state that the specific amounts, application and frequence of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium were not merely matters of selection, routine experimentation, routine optimization or obvious variations of what was taught in the prior art.
Items 22-26 relate to the Temmink reference and state that given this reference one would not have departed significantly from the specific nutrient amounts as disclosed, been motivated to identify nutrient amounts and application rates that are higher than those taught by Temmink nor would one have had a reasonable expectation of success given the teachings of Temmink.
*Applicant is arguing the references as if it were used as an anticipatory reference. Temmink, in combination of the other references, make obvious the instant invention.
Items 27-33 relate to the Bubier reference and state that given this reference one would not have departed significantly from the specific nutrient amounts as disclosed, been motivated to identify nutrient amounts and application rates that are higher than those taught by Bubier nor would one have had a reasonable expectation of success given the teachings of Bubier.
*Applicant is arguing the references as if it were used as an anticipatory reference. Bubier, in combination of the other references, make obvious the instant invention.
Item 34 relates to the introduction of Exhibits A-B stating that Sphagnum favored relatively low nutrient amounts and application rates.
Items 35-38 relates to Exhibit A teaching of low nutrient amounts, application rates, and application frequencies. Applicant states that given Exhibit A, one would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in formulating the specific nutrient amounts, application rates, and application frequency while considering the teachings of Temmink and/or Bubier.
*Exhibit A does teach lower amounts, rates and frequencies show successful productivity of Sphagnum and teach higher amounts result in lower production. The prior art teaches higher rate applications and suggest mediations for causes of decreases in Sphagnum productivity. Temmink et al teach that Sphagnum requires high nutrient availability and optimal irrigation management of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to achieve very high productivity. Bubier specifically teach nitrogen at least 1600 mg per m2, phosphate at least 6300 mg per m2 and Potassium at least 5000 mg per m2 . While Bubier does state that losses in Ca and Mg occurred concomitant with a decline in Sphagnum productivity with increased N deposition, Bubier also states loss of the cations from soil is a known consequence of excess N and acidification, and has been implicated as a primary cause of forest decline in the US and in Europe. This suggests that at high Nitrogen level deposition, there with be a loss of Ca and Mg in the soil that contributes to the decline in productivity of not only forest species but also Sphagnum. If higher deposition of Nitrogen occurs, either intentionally or naturally, one would want to prevent the loss of cations, such as Ca and Mg, from the soil by augmenting the soils with these cations. One would have been motivated to augment the soils with these cations to prevent a decline in productivity. One would have a reasonable expectation of success of preventing a decline in productivity due to loss of cations caused by increases in Nitrogen deposition given the teachings of Bubier.
Items 39-30 relates to Exhibit A teaching lower amounts, rates and frequencies show successful productivity of Sphagnum and teach higher amounts result in lower production. The prior art teaches higher rate applications and suggest mediations for causes of decreases in Sphagnum productivity. Temmink et al teach that Sphagnum requires high nutrient availability and optimal irrigation management of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to achieve very high productivity. Bubier specifically teach nitrogen at least 1600 mg per m2, phosphate at least 6300 mg per m2 and Potassium at least 5000 mg per m2 . While Bubier does state that losses in Ca and Mg occurred concomitant with a decline in Sphagnum productivity with increased N deposition, Bubier also states loss of the cations from soil is a known consequence of excess N and acidification, and has been implicated as a primary cause of forest decline in the US and in Europe. This suggest that at high Nitrogen level deposition, there with be a loss of Ca and Mg in the soil that contributes to the decline in productivity of not only forest species but also Sphagnum. If higher deposition of Nitrogen occurs, either intentionally or naturally, one would want to prevent the loss of cations, such as Ca and Mg, from the soil by augmenting the soils with these cations. One would have been motivated to augment the soils with these cations to prevent a decline in productivity. One would have a reasonable expectation of success of preventing a decline in productivity due to loss of cations caused by increases in Nitrogen deposition given the teachings of Bubier.
Item 41 presents the data for a nutrient trial that was performed in May 2025. Three treatments using nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were treatments 8, 9 and 10, respectively. The phosphate is in the form of calcium phosphate. The treatments with the productivity of 2.4 or higher were the nitrogen only (3), NPK (8), NPK+trace (9) and NPK x3 (10). The treatments with the productivity of 2.5 or higher were the NPK treatments 8 and 10.
*Taken in light of Exhibits A and B, Exhibit C may show unexpected results however, given the prior art references and analysis, these results are not deemed unexpected. Temmink et al found that Sphagnum farming is well able to thrive under high nitrogen input provided that there is a simultaneous high input of phosphorus and potassium. Exhibit C shows that under nitrogen alone (3), the production is 2.46 g which is slightly higher than the NPK + Trace (9) amount of 2.44 g and slightly less than the NPK (8) of 2.66 g and the NPKx3 (10) amount of 2.91 g. The NPK (8) and NPKx3 (10) supports the assertion of Temmink et al. Temmink et al in Table 2 also shows that the N, P and K content in the variants and species fluctuate and fluctuations are also seen between years.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 26, 45 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Temmink et al (2017. Sphagnum farming in a eutrophic world: The importance of optimal nutrient stoichiometry. Ecological Engineering 98: 196-205), Bubier et al (2011.Effects of nutrient addition on leaf chemistry, morphology, and photosynthetic capacity of three bog shrubs. Oecologia 167: 355-368), Lin et al (CN108782089 A 2018) and Keating (2016. WO 2016/179633). Applicant’s arguments filed 30 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is the same as the rejection as set forth in the Office action mailed 21 October 2025, as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 26, 45 and 50-51. Applicant’s arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are broadly drawn to a method for cultivating Sphagnum, the method comprising supply the Sphagnum with a nutrient composition, the nutrient composition comprising nitrogen (at least 223.61 mg per m2 of Sphagnum per week), phosphorus (at least 131.93 mg per m2 of Sphagnum per week), and potassium (at least 802.09 mg per m2 of Sphagnum per week) and calcium, magnesium, sodium, copper, zinc, sulfur, boron, iron, molybdenum, or chloride. Claims are drawn to suppling the composition by spray or drip irrigation and supplying the composition is carried out for at least 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, or 6 months and wherein the supplying comprises supplying the amount of nutrient composition in a single week, a period of multiple weeks or an average amount per week over a period of one or more weeks.
Temmink et al teach sphagnum farming techniques employing enriched nutrient conditions to increase biomass and improve effective sequestering of nutrients into Sphagnum biomass [entire document]. Temmink et al found that Sphagnum farming is well able to thrive under high nitrogen input provided that there is a simultaneous high input of phosphorus and potassium from irrigation water [abstract]. Temmink teach that low nutrient concentration also limits primary production of Sphagnum like it does for any other plant species [page 197, lf. col., para. 4]. Temmink et al teach that the Sphagnum farm in this study reached a very high productivity compared to other productivity studies in natural or constructed Sphagnum-dominated systems [para. Bridging pages 200 and 201]. Next to higher nutrient availability, this is probably due to less competition and optimal irrigation management [para. Bridging pages 200 and 201].
Therefore, after considering Temmink et al as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Sphagnum requires nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to grow and survive. One would also understand that sphagnum farming requires high nutrient availability and optimal irrigation management to achieve very high productivity.
Temmink et al do not teach supplying nutrient composition in the specific concentrations of nutrient composition between 223.61 mg and 1280.25 mg of nitrogen per m2 per week (claim 3), 131.93 mg and 648.18 mg of phosphorus per m2 per week (claim 8) or 802.09 mg and 1813.26 mg of potassium per m2 per week (claim 13) or the cited the timing of the application (at least 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, or 6 months -claim 51; each week for a period of multiple weeks). Temmink et al do not specifically teach spray or drip irrigation systems. Temmink et al do not teach wherein the nutrient composition further comprises calcium, magnesium, sodium, copper, zinc, sulfur, boron, iron, molybdenum, or chloride.
Bubier et al teach that plants in nutrient-poor environments such as bogs and arctic tundra are adapted in several ways to the slow turnover of N, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) [page 356, left column, para 2]. The study site vegetation is dominated by dwarf ericaceous shrubs along with a ground layer of the mosses Sphagnum magellanicum and Sphagnum capillifolium [page 357, left column, para. 1]. Bubier et al chose N amendments of 1.6 and 6.4 g m-2 a-1 because they represent the range of probably increases in N deposition in peatland regions of North America and Europe in the twenty-first century [page 357, left column, para. 1]. Bubier et al teach that fertilizer was given in soluble form, dissolved in 18 L distilled water, at 3-week intervals from early May to late August (which equals approximately 16 weeks or 4 times between early May to late August) [page 357, left column, para. 2; Table 1]. Treatments included 5NPK and 20 NPK with 1600 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K and 6400 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K, respectively [see Table 1] (which reads on comprising nitrogen (at least 223.61 mg per m2 of Sphagnum per week), phosphorus (at least 2131.93 mg per m2 of Sphagnum per week), -Claim 1. Bubier et al state that “losses in Ca and Mg occurred concomitant with a decline in Sphagnum productivity with increased N deposition in European peatlands” suggesting that the decrease Sphagnum productivity was caused by losses Ca and Mg which was a result of increased N deposition [page 362, rt. col.] Bubier et al found that bog plants adapted to low-nutrient environments do not shift their resource allocation to phyotosynthetic process, even after reaching N sufficiency, but instead store the excess N in organic compounds for future use [Abstract; para bridging pages 366 and 367].
Therefore, after considering Bubier et al as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applying fertilizers to bog sites was routine and commonly practiced. One would also understand that composition of bog fertilizers routinely includes 1600 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K and 6400 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K [Table 1].
Lin et al teach a method of cultivating bryophytes (which includes Sphagnum) [entire document; [0004]]. Lin et al teach that the nutrient solution contains water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and vitamins [0058] and the solution is sprayed evenly on the surface every 3 days to ensure the nutrient needs of moss [0012]. Colonization on a mixed substrate to supplement the nutrients required by the moss, ensures the longevity after planting and ensures the healthy growth, improves the survival rate, reproduction rate and vitality of the moss [0023].
Therefore, after considering Lin et al as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that bryophyte (including Sphagnum) that require water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and calcium. One would understand that the nutrient solution could be delivered to the plant by spraying. Cultivation using these methodologies ensures longevity and healthy growth and further improves the survival rate, improves the reproduction rate and vitality of the moss.
Keating teaches plant growth solution comprising a salt nutrient mixture including one or more nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, boron, zinc and cooper [0013-0017]. Keating teaching that each different plant or crop type has differing requirements for the nutrients in a typical nutrient mixture [0044]. The plant growth solution may be used in a watering system including an open watering system such as the irrigation or spray watering of an open field [0014]. Those skilled in the art are well aware of the preferred conditions and optimal nutrient mixtures for each plant and crop type and are well able to determine the stoichiometric ratios to convert [0044].
Therefore, after considering Keating as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that nutrient mixture needed for plant growth would include nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, boron, zinc and copper and that this mixture could be used in a spray irrigation system. Furthermore, one would understand that the optimal nutrient mixtures for each species is different and would need to be individualized.
Although the references do not specifically teach supplying the nutrient composition each week for a period of multiple weeks, one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to use such a timing of application as a matter of routine optimization and experimentation. The adjustment of particular conventional working parameters such as supplying the Sphagnum with a nutrient composition each week for a period of multiple weeks is deemed to be merely a matter of selection and routine optimization that is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been no more than an effort to optimize results. In the absence of any showing of criticality or unexpected results, the particular timing of the application of the nutrient solution is an obvious variation of what was taught in the prior art and could be arrived at during routine experimentation/optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Temmink et al, Bubier et al, Lin et al and Keating and to cultivate Sphagnum by spraying a nutrient composition comprising specific concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium calcium, magnesium and one or more of copper, zinc, boron or iron each week for a period of multiple weeks. Temmink et al teach Sphagnum requires nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to grow and survive and that sphagnum requires high nutrient availability and optimal irrigation management to achieve very high productivity. Bubier et al teach fertilizer treatments included 5NPK and 20 NPK with 1600 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K and 6400 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K, respectively [see Table 1]. Lin et al teach spraying bryophytes (including Sphagnum) with a nutrient solution including nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and calcium. Keating teach a nutrient solution that includes nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, boron, zinc and copper and that the nutrient solution could be used in a spray irrigation system. One would have been motivated to combine the cited references to provide by spraying (Lin et al) the Sphagnum with the optimum nutritional solution (Temmink et al, Bubier et al, Lin et al and Keating) to obtain high productivity (Temminck et al) and to ensure longevity, healthy growth, increase survival/reproduction rate and vitality (Lin et al). Furthermore, there is a growing demand for the high ornamental nature of moss (Lin et al; [0004]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that spray irrigation of plants (including sphagnum) with optimized nutrient solutions is well known in the art, commonly practiced by the skilled artisan and taught by Temmink et al, Bubier et al, Lin et al and Keating.
Although Bubier et al teach fertilizer treatments included 5NPK and 20 NPK with 1600 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K and 6400 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K, respectively [see Table 1] none of the cited art references specifically teach a nutrient composition between 223.61 mg and 1280.25 mg of nitrogen per m2 per week (claim 3), 131.93 mg and 648.18 mg of phosphorus per m2 per week (claim 8) or 802.09 mg and 1813.26 mg of potassium per m2 per week (claim 13) or the cited the timing of the application (least 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, or 6 months -claim 51; each week for a period of multiple weeks-claim 1), one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to use such amounts and application times as a matter of routine optimization and experimentation. Bubier et al teach fertilizer treatments included 5NPK and 20 NPK with 1600 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K and 6400 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K, respectively [see Table 1]. As taught by Keating, each different plant has differing nutrient requirements and the optimal nutrient mixtures for each plant would need to be determined. Given the cost benefit of using the least amount of fertilizer to obtain optimum results, one would optimize below the 5NPK and 20 NPK treatments of Bubier et al. The adjustment of particular conventional working parameters such as specific amounts of a nutrient such as 223.61 mg and 1280.25 mg of nitrogen per m2 per week (claim 3), 131.93 mg and 648.18 mg of phosphorus per m2 per week (claim 8) or 802.09 mg and 1813.26 mg of potassium per m2 per week (claim 13) and the timing of the applications is deemed to be merely a matter of selection and routine optimization that is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been no more than an effort to optimize results. In the absence of any showing of criticality or unexpected results, the particular amount of nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium and the timing of the application is an obvious variation of what was taught in the prior art and could be arrived at during routine experimentation/optimization.
Furthermore, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (see MPEP 2144.05).
Applicants Arguments dated 20 April 2026
Applicants urge Temmink does not teach supplying sphagnum with the specific concentrations of nutrient composition as specified in claim 1. [Response page 11].
These arguments have been carefully considered but are not deemed persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants cited the nitrogen content of the nutrient load as being 5.8-17.3 mg per m2 per week of N. It appears that the Applicants converted and calculated the cited 3-9 kg N ha1-yr-1 (or 300-900 mg m-2) as taught by Temmink and divided that by 52 to get an average per week (5.8-17.3 mg per m2 per week of N). But there is no reference that the concentration was applied every week for 52 weeks. Temmink state that airborne N was responsible for the major supply of N. Phosphorus and potassium were mainly supplied by irrigation waters and the prevailing high nutrient levels (P and K) are a result of nutrient-rich-irrigation waters from the surroundings. The estimated nutrient load via irrigation was 0.7-2.4 kg P, 13 kg K and 3-9 kg N ha-1 yr-1. This estimate would fluctuate with the growing season and when fertilizers and augmentations were applied. Temmink also states that nutrient management still needs further improvement to reduce the competitive advantage f fast growing peatmoss species at the expense of slower growing but preferred peatmosses as horticultural substrate to optimize the quality of biomass yields. While Temmink does not specifically measure nutrient load per week, Temmink does show that fluctuations occur with growing season and optimization is necessary depending on the species of interest and optimal irrigation management.
Applicants urge that Bubier teach that high nutrient levels resulted in lower growth rates at higher N deposition levels of the Sphagnum and that losses in Ca and Mg occurred concomitant with a decline in Sphagnum productivity with increase N deposition. [Response pages 6-7).
These arguments have been carefully considered but are not deemed persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Temmink et al teach that Sphagnum requires nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to grow and survive. One would also understand that sphagnum farming requires high nutrient availability and optimal irrigation management to achieve very high productivity. Bubier et al teach that applying fertilizers to bog sites was routine and commonly practiced. Bubier et al teach that composition of bog fertilizers routinely include 1600 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K and 6400 mg m-2a-1 of N, 6300 mg m-2a-1 of P and 5000 mg m-2a-1 of K [Table 1]. While the teaching concentrates on vascular plants, results of the application of nutrient fertilizers on the growth of Sphagnum is also reported. Applicant points to the citation that “…lower growth rates [of Sphagnum] at higher N deposition levels” in peatlands and that the teaching of Bubier et al “confirms that the loss of Sphagnum was observed for the 20NPK plots. Bubier et al teach that increased N deposition causes losses in Ca and Mg which resulted in a decline in Sphagnum productivity. This provides motivation to include Ca and Mg to counter the negative effects of higher nitrogen concentrations in the nutrient solution as stated in claims 26 and 28, respectively.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., increase in productivity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim simply states a method of cultivation of Sphagnum and not a method of increasing productivity. Although both Temmink and Bubier note that higher concentrations of nitrogen result in decreased productivity of Sphagnum, Bubier also states that higher nitrogen deposition results in losses in Ca and Mg providing motivation to include such cations in the composition. Although Bubier does not specifically teach adding these cations, these cations may negate the effects of the higher acidity found in higher nitrogen environments. Given the teachings of Bubier, it would have been obvious to include such cations to negate the negative effects of increased nitrogen. This could also include a simple substitution of Potassium phosphate, as found in Bubier, for calcium phosphate, or the likes.
Applicants urge the Bubier does not teach “each week for a period of multiple weeks. [Response page 14]
These arguments have been carefully considered but are not deemed persuasive. As stated above, although the references do not specifically teach supplying the nutrient composition each week for a period of multiple weeks, one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to use such a timing of application as a matter of routine optimization and experimentation. Given the teachings of Temmink and Bubier that optimization is routine and is necessary given, for example, the quality of the site, the species of sphagnum of interest, the composition of the irrigation waters and the conditions of the particular growing season. The adjustment of particular conventional working parameters such as supplying the Sphagnum with a nutrient composition each week for a period of multiple weeks is deemed to be merely a matter of selection and routine optimization that is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been no more than an effort to optimize results. In the absence of any showing of criticality or unexpected results, the particular timing of the application of the nutrient solution is an obvious variation of what was taught in the prior art and could be arrived at during routine experimentation/optimization.
4. Applicants points to the Declaration as provided by Dr. Wright to emphasize a number of points.
These arguments have been addressed supra in the analysis of the declaration/affifavit.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M REDDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0298. The examiner can normally be reached 730-6 Monday-Thursday.
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached on (571) 270-0305. 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.
/KAREN M REDDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1661
Prosecution Insights