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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 2, 4, & 11, 12, 14. Claims 18 – 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 – 17 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1 & 11, Applicant’s specification does not support amended claim recitation of “moisture exposure results in only the uncured resin of the partially cured layer curing on the roof to result in a cured roofing membrane.”
Claims 2 – 17 are dependent on claims 1 or 11, and therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et al. (US 2022/0380591 A1), in view of Hubbard (US 2017/0298630 A1), Callaway et al. (WO 2009/070194 A1) and Bondoc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,233,353).
**ASTM D6878 data sheet
With regard to claim 1, Payne et al. teach a hybrid moisture curable composition that may be used as a roof coating (paragraphs [0019], [0087], [0122]), such as in the form of a membrane (paragraph [0137]). The hybrid moisture curable composition comprising 0 – 30% by weight diluent of unreactive silicone, such as poly methylvinyl silicone rubber (“cured resin that is not moisture curable”) (paragraph [0113]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 20 – 80% by weight. Furthermore, the composition comprises a crosslinked network formed from a reaction product of 5 – 80% by weight of an acrylic copolymer resin, 5 – 80% by weight of a functional silicone polymer resin, and a crosslinker (i.e., “uncured resin”) (paragraph [0066]), and therefore a combined amount of 10 – 100% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (paragraph [0013]), wherein the claimed range of 20% to 80% by weight lies inside the range taught by the Pane et al. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Payne et al. teach the hybrid moisture curable composition can be used as an adhesive composition, such as a pressure-sensitive adhesive (paragraph [0084]), a sealant formulation, a roof coating, and/or a water impermeable formulation for roofing applications (paragraphs [0019] & [0083] – [0087]). For example, the adhesive/roof coating composition may be applied to roofing felts, membranes, and unweathered roofing substrates (paragraph [0083]).
Furthermore, Payne et al. teach the hybrid moisture curable composition is formulated with care to exclude water since premature curing of the components can occur (paragraph [0135]) and is formulated to cure by crosslinking when intentionally exposed to moisture in the environment (paragraph [0082]). The composition, after the film formed by the hybrid curable composition is adhered two adherend surfaces, is exposed to the atmosphere, and thus allowed to cure with high cohesive strength (paragraphs [0139], [0144], & [0147]). A moisture cure catalyst in the composition promotes a crosslinking reaction through a hydrolysis condensation reaction (paragraphs [0075] – [0076]).
However, Payne et al. do not teach the roof membrane comprising the hybrid moisture curable composition (i.e., “partially cured membrane roofing membrane”) is in the form of a roll, followed by unrolling and installing said roofing membrane on a roof.
Hubbard teaches a self-adhering roofing membrane including a pressure sensitive, hot melt adhesive adhered to one side of a water impermeable membrane for application to a roofing deck to form a water impermeable roofing membrane (paragraph [0007]). The roofing membrane product is provided in roll form being round around the length of a roller core. A release liner (i.e., “moisture sealed carrier”) is applied against the pressure sensitive, hot melt adhesive surface to prevent premature unwanted adhesion and, in the case of rolls, ease of unwind without sticking to the backing (paragraph [0021]). The self-adhering membrane is joined to the roof by removing the release liner and the pressing the pressure sensitive adhesive directly to the roof substrate (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Payne et al. and Hubbard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the pre-formed partially cured roofing membrane taught by Payne et al. into a roll configuration at the time of manufacture and unwinding (unrolling) of said roof membrane at the time of roof installation.
Payne do not explicitly teach the cured roofing membrane exhibits a tear strength that meets ASTM D6878.
As evidenced by **ASTM D6878 data sheet, this standard requires a minimum tear strength of 55 lbf (or 200 N). ASTM D6878 suggests the tear strength test is based on the ASTM D751 Standard Test for Coated Fabrics. According to the ASTM D751 Tear resistance test data base, the tear resistance test is based on Procedure A pendulum test (according to ASTM D1424, Elmendorf-type test) and Procedure B tongue tear test method.
Callaway et al. teach a thermoplastic or elastomer coated knit (woven) fabric with high tear strength for reinforcing roofing membranes (abstract, pgs. 1 – 2). The coated fabric has a tear strength tested in the weft direction according to ASTM D-751 B, with an average tear force (strength) measured at 65 lb., 90 lb., 130 lb (Fig. 10 – 12) (pg. 13). As discussed above, ASTM D6878 requires a minimum tear strength of 55 lbf.
Therefore, based on the teachings Callaway et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the high tear strength fabric as taught by Calaway et al. for reinforcing the roofing hybrid curable composition and substrate (i.e., “roofing membrane”) taught by Payne et al. for achieving a roofing membrane with a high tear strength that meets ASTM D6878. Callaway does not specify the composition of the thermoplastic polyolefin coated fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would attribute the high tear strength to the fabric, not the thermoplastic or elastomer coating.
Payne does not teach the total weight of resins in the cured membrane (including the fabric).
Calloway does not teach the weight of the fabric or the basis weight thermoplastic or elastomer coating. Therefore, based on the teaching of Payne et al. and Calloway alone, the percent weight of the plurality of resins based on the total weight of the roofing membrane (with the woven fabric) cannot be determined.
Bondac et al. teach a built-up roofing membrane comprising a binder (polymer resin) applied in an amount of 3 – 45% by weight of a finished mat that forms the roofing membrane, for the desired porosity and structural integrity of the mat (Col. 4, Lines 48 – 57).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bondac et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the plurality or polymer resin (i.e. binder) taught by Payne et al. to be present in a roofing membrane comprising a fabric (mat) such that the polymer resin is present in the amount of 3 – 45% by weight in order to achieve a roofing membrane having the desired porosity and structural integrity.
Polymer resin present in the amount of 3 – 45% by weight overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of plurality of resins present in the amount of least 30% by weight based on a total weight of the partially cured roofing membrane. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 2, Payne et al. teach the composition comprises a filler in the amount of 0% to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (paragraph [0016]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 1% to 70% by weight.
With regard to claim 3, Payne et al. teach the filler includes calcium carbonate, fumed silica, bentonite, and mica (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claims 4 – 5, Payne et al. teach the composition comprises an additive, such as a crosslinker, crosslinking agents, (rheology) modifiers, colorants (i.e, “pigments”), stabilizers, adhesion enhancer/promoters, coalescing agents. The crosslinker is present in the amount of up to 10%, adhesion enhancer is present in the amount of 0% by weight or greater and 15% by weight or less (paragraph [0014], [0082], [0087], [0099] – [0102], [0106], [0112] – [0113]). These additives are present within Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 70% by weight.
With regard to claim 6, as discussed above for claim 1, the cured resin comprises silicone rubber. Silicone rubber is a thermoset resin (i.e. “set” via heat) and therefore understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to inherently be a thermally curable resin.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to claim 7, as discussed above for claim 1, Payne et al. teach the cured resin is a vinyl silicone.
With regard to claim 8, Payne et al. teach the uncured resin is silicone, such as a hydroxyl terminated silicone (i.e., “hydroxyl terminated polysiloxane”) or an alkoxyl capped silicone (i.e., “alkoxyl capped polysiloxane”) (paragraph [0067]).
With regard to claim 9, as discussed above for claim 1, Calloway et al. teach a knit (woven) fabric reinforcement (of the partially cured roofing membrane) for improving the tear strength of a roofing membrane.
With regard to claim 10, Payne et al. teach the coating (i.e. “partially cured membrane”) may be configured as a sealant (paragraphs [0019], [0081] – [0082], [0085], [0137]).
Claim(s) 11 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et al. (US 2022/0380591 A1), in view of Hubbard (US 2017/0298630 A1), Georgeau et al. (US 2014/0037882 A1), Callaway et al. (WO 2009/070194 A1), & Bondoc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,233,353.
With regard to claim 11, Payne et al. teach a hybrid moisture curable composition that may be used as a roof coating (paragraphs [0019], [0087], [0122]), such as in the form of a membrane (paragraph [0137]). The hybrid moisture curable composition comprising 0 – 30% by weight diluent of unreactive silicone, such as poly methylvinyl silicone rubber (“cured resin that is not moisture curable”) (paragraph [0113]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 20 – 80% by weight. Furthermore, the composition comprises a crosslinked network formed from a reaction product of 5 – 80% by weight of an acrylic copolymer resin, 5 – 80% by weight of a functional silicone polymer resin, and a crosslinker (i.e., “uncured resin”) (paragraph [0066]), and therefore a combined amount of 10 – 100% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (paragraph [0013]), wherein the claimed range of 20% to 80% by weight lies inside the range taught by the Pane et al. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Payne et al. teach the hybrid moisture curable composition can be used as an adhesive composition, such as a pressure-sensitive adhesive (paragraph [0084]), a sealant formulation, a roof coating, and/or a water impermeable formulation for roofing applications (paragraphs [0019] & [0083] – [0087]). For example, the adhesive/roof coating composition may be applied to roofing felts, membranes, and unweathered roofing substrates (paragraph [0083]).
Furthermore, Payne et al. teach the hybrid moisture curable composition is formulated with care to exclude water since premature curing of the components can occur (paragraph [0135]) and is formulated to cure by crosslinking when intentionally exposed to moisture in the environment (paragraph [0082]). The composition, after the film formed by the hybrid curable composition is adhered two adherend surfaces, is exposed to the atmosphere, and thus allowed to cure with high cohesive strength (paragraphs [0139], [0144], & [0147]). A moisture cure catalyst in the composition promotes a crosslinking reaction through a hydrolysis condensation reaction (paragraphs [0075] – [0076]).
However, Payne et al. do not teach the roof membrane comprising the hybrid moisture curable composition (i.e., “partially cured membrane roofing membrane”) is in the form of a roll, followed by unrolling and installing said roofing membrane on a roof.
Hubbard teaches a self-adhering roofing membrane including a pressure sensitive, hot melt adhesive adhered to one side of a water impermeable membrane for application to a roofing deck to form a water impermeable roofing membrane (paragraph [0007]). The roofing membrane product is provided in roll form being round around the length of a roller core. A release liner (i.e., “moisture sealed carrier”) is applied against the pressure sensitive, hot melt adhesive surface to prevent premature unwanted adhesion and, in the case of rolls, ease of unwind without sticking to the backing (paragraph [0021]). The self-adhering membrane is joined to the roof by removing the release liner and the pressing the pressure sensitive adhesive directly to the roof substrate (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Payne et al. and Hubbard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the pre-formed partially cured roofing membrane taught by Payne et al. into a roll configuration at the time of manufacture and unwinding (unrolling) of said roof membrane at the time of roof installation.
Hubbard does not teach the release liner (i.e., “moisture sealed carrier”) is configured to prevent moisture.
Georgeau et al. teach a moisture curable structure adhesive and a release liner disposed over the adhesive to protect the uncured adhesive from moisture prior to its application to a substrate that may initiate pre-mature curing (paragraphs [0006] & [0018]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Georgeau et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the release liner taught by Hubbard such that the release liner protects an uncured moisture curable adhesive from moisture in order to prevent pre-mature curing of said adhesive.
Payne do not explicitly teach the cured roofing membrane exhibits a tear strength that meets ASTM D6878.
As evidenced by ASTM D6878 data sheet, this standard requires a minimum tear strength of 55 lbf (or 200 N). ASTM D6878 suggests the tear strength test is based on the ASTM D751 Standard Test for Coated Fabrics. According to the ASTM D751 Tear resistance test data base, the tear resistance test is based on Procedure A pendulum test (according to ASTM D1424, Elmendorf-type test) and Procedure B tongue tear test method.
Callaway et al. teach a thermoplastic or elastomer coated knit (woven) fabric with high tear strength for reinforcing roofing membranes (abstract, pgs. 1 – 2). The coated fabric has a tear strength tested in the weft direction according to ASTM D-751 B, with an average tear force (strength) measured at 65 lb., 90 lb., 130 lb (Fig. 10 – 12) (pg. 13). As discussed above, ASTM D6878 requires a minimum tear strength of 55 lbf.
Therefore, based on the teachings Callaway et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the high tear strength fabric as taught by Calaway et al. for reinforcing the roofing hybrid curable composition and substrate (i.e., “roofing membrane”) taught by Payne et al. for achieving a roofing membrane with a high tear strength that meets ASTM D6878. Callaway does not specify the composition of the thermoplastic polyolefin coated fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would attribute the high tear strength to the fabric, not the thermoplastic or elastomer coating.
Payne does not teach the total weight of resins in the cured membrane (including the fabric).
Calloway does not teach the weight of the fabric or the basis weight thermoplastic or elastomer coating. Therefore, based on the teaching of Payne et al. and Calloway alone, the percent weight of the plurality of resins based on the total weight of the roofing membrane (with the woven fabric) cannot be determined.
Bondac et al. teach a built-up roofing membrane comprising a binder (polymer resin) applied in an amount of 3 – 45% by weight of a finished mat that forms the roofing membrane, for the desired porosity and structural integrity of the mat (Col. 4, Lines 48 – 57).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bondac et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the plurality or polymer resin (i.e. binder) taught by Payne et al. to be present in a roofing membrane comprising a fabric (mat) such that the polymer resin is present in the amount of 3 – 45% by weight in order to achieve a roofing membrane having the desired porosity and structural integrity.
Polymer resin present in the amount of 3 – 45% by weight overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of plurality of resins present in the amount of least 30% by weight based on a total weight of the partially cured roofing membrane. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 12, Payne et al. teach the composition comprises a filler in the amount of 0% to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (paragraph [0016]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 1% to 70% by weight.
With regard to claim 13, Payne et al. teach the filler includes calcium carbonate, fumed silica, bentonite, and mica (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claims 14 – 15, Payne et al. teach the composition comprises an additive, such as a crosslinker, crosslinking agents, (rheology) modifiers, colorants (i.e, “pigments”), stabilizers, adhesion enhancer/promoters, coalescing agents. The crosslinker is present in the amount of up to 10%, adhesion enhance is present in the amount of 0% by weight or greater and 15% by weight or less (paragraph [0014], [0082], [0087], [0099] – [0102], [0106], [0112] – [0113]). These additives are present within Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 70% by weight.
With regard to claim 16, as discussed above for claim 1, Payne et al. teach the cured resin is vinyl silicone.
With regard to claim 17, Payne et al. teach the uncured resin is silicone, such as a hydroxyl terminated silicone (i.e., “hydroxyl terminated polysiloxane”) or an alkoxyl capped silicone (i.e., “alkoxyl capped polysiloxane”) (paragraph [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argue, “Payne teaches ‘[T]he acrylic copolymer, the functional silicone polymer, and the crosslinker can react to form a covalently bonded material. The acrylic copolymer, the functional silicone polymer, and the crosslinker compositions are characterized by curing which takes place rapidly, even at room temperature, under the action of atmospheric humidity and can be accelerated, if required, by adding a moisture cure catalyst’ (emphasis added) (paragraph [0136]).
“According, Payne does not teach the limitations ‘wherein the cured resin is not moisture curable,’ ‘wherein the partially cured roofing membrane roll is unrolled and installed on a roof, moisture exposure results in only the uncured resin of the partially cured layer curing on the roof to result in a cured roofing membrane that exhibits a tear strength that meets ASTM D6878,’ as required by amended claim 1 because the ‘cured resin’ of Payne, i.e. the acrylic copolymer,’ is ‘moisture curable’ as the ‘acrylic polymer’ (‘cured resin’) reacts with the ‘functional silicone polymer’ (‘uncured resin’) when exposed to moisture” (Remarks, Pgs. 8 – 9).
Applicant makes the same argument with regard to the rejection of claims 11 – 17 (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: First, Applicant’s amendments and arguments bring up an point regarding what it means for a thermoplastic resin to be “cured” in a partially cured composition which also contains non-crosslinked (“uncured”) thermoset resin, and how that pertains to the prior art and Applicant’s disclosed invention. A resin composition is considered “cured” when it has hardened. A layer that is composed of homogeneous thermoset resin is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be cured when it is “set” (i.e., hardened) as a result of a cross-linking reaction when heated. A layer composed of homogeneous thermoplastic resin is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be cured when it has set (i.e., dried) as a result of a completed polymerization reaction is complete and/or after any solvent that may be present has evaporated off.
Applicant’s preferred embodiments of their composition are not homogeneous, but rather a blend of “cured” thermoplastic and “uncured” thermoset resins (see claims 7 – 8). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill interpret the word “cured” to be different for thermoplastic and thermoset resins. Applicant’s specification fails to provide a clear definition for the term “cured resin” in embodiments of resins that are not capable of cross-linking (e.g. thermoplastic resins of claim 7) in a composition that has not hardened (“partially cured”).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification teaches the following:
[28] As used herein, "not moisture curable" includes resins that utilize a curing mechanism other than via moisture. Examples of curing mechanisms other than via moisture include, but are not limited to, thermal curing, adhesive curing, polymer curing, radiation curing, or any combination thereof.
[37] In some embodiments, the second resin is moisture curable. As used herein, "moisture curable" includes resins that utilize moisture as a curing mechanism. Moisture can be applied to drive the curing via, for example, ambient humidity, spraying with water, or any combination thereof.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Applicant’s definition of “not moisture curable” (from paragraph [28] of the specification) does not preclude fully polymerized (i.e., “cured”) thermoplastic polymers that have been modified with functional groups capable of undergoing a crosslinking reaction when exposed to moisture in a later curing step. The definition of “not moisture curable” merely requires curing (i.e., polymerization if the resin is thermoplastic) by means other than moisture at any point in the manufacturing process.
Payne teaches the acrylic resin is polymerized (cured) at high temperatures before combined with the uncured functional silicone. Therefore, when taking all of the above factors into consideration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the acrylic copolymer resin taught by Payne to be (1) a cured resin, (2) “utilize(d) a curing mechanism other than via moisture” (Applicant’s definition of “not a moisture curable resin”), and (3) due to the modification with a cross-linkable functional group, also meet Applicant’s definition of “a moisture curable.”
However, the Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion that the modified acrylic resin copolymer taught by Payne undergoes a cross-linking reaction to the functional (uncured) silicone in the moisture curing step, and therefore does not meet Applicant’s amendment of “moisture exposure results in only the uncured resin of the partially cured layer curing on the roof to result in a cured roofing membrane.” Therefore, as a result of Applicant’s amendment of the independent claims, the rejection has been modified to suggest a different component of the composition meets the definition of Applicant’s “cured resin”: Payne’s diluent of unreactive polymethylvinyl silicone rubber (paragraph [0113]). One of ordinary skill in the art would consider “rubber” to refer to a fully cured polymer, and therefore meet the limitations of Applicant’s recited “cured polymer” that is “not moisture curable” and “moisture exposure results in only the uncured resin of the partially cured layer curing on the roof to result in a cured roofing membrane.”
For future discussion, with regard to claim 7 and the specification (paragraphs [10], & [34]), it is unclear what Applicant intends by an “isocyanate polymer” and “polyol.”
First, a polymer can be isocyanate-based, such as polyurethane. However, there are no known polymers containing only isocyanate monomer units.
Second, polyols are not polymers, and therefore, not resins. Polyols are small molecules often used as monomer units in combination with isocyanate monomer units to form polyurethane resin.
With regard to these options in claim 7, it is assumed Applicant intended to recite isocyanate-based polymer or polyol-based polymer, such as a polyurethane resin.
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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781