DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-24 are pending and under consideration on the merits. Of these, claims 10-14 and 16-20 are withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention. Therefore, claims 1, 4-9, 15, and 21-24 are under consideration on the merits.
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 .
Status of the Rejections
The 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment, but new rejections are applied over new references as detailed below.
A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection was necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites a species for each of the polyoxyalkylene(9)alkyl ether, alkyl glycoside, and alkyl glyceryl ether, but the claim nowhere clearly recites that the composition must comprise each of these species, and base claim 1 only requires the presence of one of polyoxyalkylene(9)alkyl ether, alkyl glycoside, or alkyl glyceryl ether. It is unclear if claim 23 is intended to require the presence of polyoxyethylene(9) lauryl ether, C10-C14 alkyl glucose, and 2-ethylhexyl glyceryl ether in combination, or only one of them. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, claim 23 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is that only one of the recited species is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over, Friede et al. (WO 01/21152).
As to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 23-24, Friede discloses an aqueous solution of comprising polyoxyethylene-9 lauryl ether (a “wing wetting agent” of claims 1, 5 and 23) in the amount of 0.5 wt%, which is within the range of claims 1 and 24 (page 9, 3rd paragraph and page 22, line 10). The composition further comprises an additional surfactant most preferably in the amount of up to 2 wt% (page 7, 1st paragraph) and comprises no additional ingredients such that the overall composition will comprise water in amounts within the ranges of claims 4 and 8-9. The solution does not comprise an insecticidal component as recited by claims 1 and 5.
The limitation of base claims 1 and 5 that the composition is a “flying pest exterminating composition” is merely an intended use of the claimed composition. The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted without importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the preamble phrase “which provides improved playing and handling characteristics” in a claim drawn to a head for a lacrosse stick was not a claim limitation).
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
Here, the body of claims 1 and 5 fully set forth the ingredients in the composition and their amounts, along with their functional properties. The Friede composition comprises the same ingredients in the same amount recited by the claims and therefore is capable of performing the function of being a flying pest exterminating composition based upon the evidence of record. The preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
While Friede does not expressly disclose the surface tension of the wing wetting agent nor the kinematic viscosity of the composition as recited by claims 1 and 5, the Friede solutions necessarily and inherently will possess surface tension and kinematic viscosity values within the recited ranges because they comprise the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims as discussed above, and a composition cannot be separated from its properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Alternatively, although Friede does not expressly disclose the surface tension of the wing wetting agent nor the kinematic viscosity of the composition as recited by claims 1 and 5, the present claims are prima facie obvious over the Friede composition because they comprise the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims as discussed above, and a composition cannot be separated from its properties such that the Friede composition will possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the countless ways that an Applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When the prior art appears to contain the same ingredients that are disclosed by Applicants' own specification as suitable for use in the invention, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, and the burden is properly shifted to Applicants to demonstrate otherwise. See MPEP 2112.01. Additionally, discovering optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art in cases where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over, de Paula et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 634 (2022)).
As to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 22, and 24, de Paula is a discussion of the use of alkyl glyceryl ethers as water based lubricant additives, and discloses aqueous solutions of C8 or C10 alkyl glyceryl ether (a “wing wetting agent” of claims 1, 5, 22, and 23) in amounts of about 0.01-0.1 wt%, which substantially overlaps the range of claim 24 (Title, Abstract, Section 2.3-2.4, and Figure 1). The only other ingredient in the solution is Triton X-100 in the amount of 0.1 wt%, such that the overall composition will comprise water in amounts within the ranges of claims 4 and 8-9 and does not comprise an insecticidal component as recited by claims 1 and 5.
The limitation of base claims 1 and 5 that the composition is a “flying pest exterminating composition” is merely an intended use of the claimed composition. The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted without importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the preamble phrase “which provides improved playing and handling characteristics” in a claim drawn to a head for a lacrosse stick was not a claim limitation).
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
Here, the body of claims 1 and 5 fully set forth the ingredients in the composition and their amounts, along with their functional properties. The de Paula composition comprises the same ingredients in the same amount recited by the claims and therefore is capable of performing the function of being a flying pest exterminating composition based upon the evidence of record. The preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
While de Paula does not expressly disclose the surface tension of the wing wetting agent nor the kinematic viscosity of the composition as recited by claims 1 and 5, the de Paula solutions necessarily and inherently will possess surface tension and kinematic viscosity values within the recited ranges because they comprise the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims as discussed above, and a composition cannot be separated from its properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Alternatively, although de Paula does not expressly disclose the surface tension of the wing wetting agent nor the kinematic viscosity of the composition as recited by claims 1 and 5, the present claims are prima facie obvious over the de Paula composition because they comprise the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims as discussed above, and a composition cannot be separated from its properties such that the de Paula composition will possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the countless ways that an Applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When the prior art appears to contain the same ingredients that are disclosed by Applicants' own specification as suitable for use in the invention, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, and the burden is properly shifted to Applicants to demonstrate otherwise. See MPEP 2112.01. Additionally, discovering optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art in cases where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over, Platz et al. (Langmuir 1995, 11, 4250-4255).
As to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 22-24, Platz discloses aqueous solutions of C8/C10 alkyl glycosides (a “wing wetting agent” of claims 1, 5, 21, and 23) in amounts of 0.01 to 0.5 wt%, which substantially overlaps the range of claim 24 (Title, Abstract, and Figure 10). The compositions do not comprise any other ingredients, such that the composition will comprise water in amounts within the ranges of claims 4 and 8-9, and the composition does not comprise an insecticidal component as recited by claims 1 and 5.
The limitation of base claims 1 and 5 that the composition is a “flying pest exterminating composition” is merely an intended use of the claimed composition. The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted without importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the preamble phrase “which provides improved playing and handling characteristics” in a claim drawn to a head for a lacrosse stick was not a claim limitation).
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
Here, the body of claims 1 and 5 fully set forth the ingredients in the composition and their amounts, along with their functional properties. The de Paula composition comprises the same ingredients in the same amount recited by the claims and therefore is capable of performing the function of being a flying pest exterminating composition based upon the evidence of record. The preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
While de Paula does not expressly disclose the surface tension of the wing wetting agent nor the kinematic viscosity of the composition as recited by claims 1 and 5, the de Paula solutions necessarily and inherently will possess surface tension and kinematic viscosity values within the recited ranges because they comprise the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims as discussed above, and a composition cannot be separated from its properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Alternatively, although de Paula does not expressly disclose the surface tension of the wing wetting agent nor the kinematic viscosity of the composition as recited by claims 1 and 5, the present claims are prima facie obvious over the de Paula composition because they comprise the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims as discussed above, and a composition cannot be separated from its properties such that the de Paula composition will possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the countless ways that an Applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When the prior art appears to contain the same ingredients that are disclosed by Applicants' own specification as suitable for use in the invention, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, and the burden is properly shifted to Applicants to demonstrate otherwise. See MPEP 2112.01. Additionally, discovering optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art in cases where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
103 Rejections
Claims 1, 4-9, 15, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Friede et al. (WO 01/21152) in view of the archived Russman Debblizer Surfactant product web page dated 3/01/2016; of record (hereinafter “Russman”).
The teachings of Friede are relied upon as discussed above, but they do not further expressly disclose a spray container comprising the flying pest exterminating composition as required by clams 6-7 and 15.
Russman discloses a spray bottle container for a surfactant.
As to claims 6-7 and 15, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the aqueous surfactant composition of Friede by incorporating it into a spray bottle for storage and ease of application, since Russman teaches that a spray container is suitable for storage and delivery of a surfactant solution. Such a modification is merely the combining of known prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results, which is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143.
Claims 1, 4-9, 15, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Platz et al. (Langmuir 1995, 11, 4250-4255) or de Paula et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 634 (2022)), and in view of the archived Russman Debblizer Surfactant product web page dated 3/01/2016; of record (hereinafter “Russman”).
The teachings of Platz are relied upon as discussed above, but this reference does not further expressly disclose a spray container comprising the flying pest exterminating composition as required by clams 6-7 and 15.
Russman discloses a spray bottle container for a surfactant.
As to claims 6-7 and 15, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the aqueous surfactant composition of Platz by incorporating it into a spray bottle for storage and ease of application, since Russman teaches that a spray container is suitable for storage and delivery of a surfactant solution. Such a modification is merely the combining of known prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results, which is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143.
Claims 1, 4-9, 15, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over de Paula et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 634 (2022)), and in view of the archived Russman Debblizer Surfactant product web page dated 3/01/2016; of record (hereinafter “Russman”).
The teachings of de Paula are relied upon as discussed above, but this reference does not further expressly disclose a spray container comprising the flying pest exterminating composition as required by clams 6-7 and 15.
Russman discloses a spray bottle container for a surfactant.
As to claims 6-7 and 15, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the aqueous surfactant composition of de Paula by incorporating it into a spray bottle for storage and ease of application, since Russman teaches that a spray container is suitable for storage and delivery of a surfactant solution. Such a modification is merely the combining of known prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results, which is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered carefully but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 GAREN GOTFREDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 5712720827. 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.
/GAREN GOTFREDSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600