DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 27 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 16-18, 21, 23, 27, 29, 32, 35-36, 41 and 44-48 are pending. Claims 35-36 and 41 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendment dated 27 May 2026. For this reason, this action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1, 3, 9, 12, 16-18 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being 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 1 recites that a bioactive dental material comprising a plurality of polymerizable organic compounds wherein the plurality of polymerizable organic compounds comprises about 9% (w/w%) PMGDM and bioactive dental material from about 50% to 60% by weight of the bioactive dental material. It is not clear whether the 9% PMGDM is relative to the amount of polymerizable organic compounds or relative to the amount of the bioactive dental material. The recitation of bioactive dental material from about 50% to about 60% by weight of the bioactive dental material is a circular definition suggesting that the bioactive dental material is present in an amount of 50-60% relative to the amount of itself. Please clarify precisely which compounds are present in each percentage so that skilled users can know whether they are within the scope of the claim. If the intent is to recite the same scope for these components as is recited in Claim 21, Examiner suggests recited two distinct limitation statements so that is clear which component and which basis pertain to each percentage. Claims 3, 9, 12, 16-18 and 44-48 are also rejected because they depend upon and also include Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 18, 21, 23, 27, 29, 32, 44 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARSHALL (US-20090197221-A1) in view of DICKENS (WO-2005002531-A1) as evidenced by DENG (Int. J. Oral Sci, 5, 103-110 (2013)).
The DICKENS reference is in the IDS dated 1 September 2022.
Regarding Claim 1, MARSHALL teaches a dental bonding composition for bonding a dental resin composite to dentin ([0028]) containing a bioactive glass, a non-aqueous solvent and acidic monomers ([0030]).
MARSHALL teaches the bioactive glass Bioglass 45S5 which is composed of SiO2, NaO, CaO and P2O5 ([0045]) which satisfies the requirement of a calcium sodium phosphosilicate that is substantially fluoride free. Bioglass 45S5 is also the same bioactive glass used in the current invention (cur spec: [0106]). Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence to show that the Bioglass 45S5 taught by MARSHALL is a source of slow-releasing biologically active calcium and phosphate ions (cur spec: [0117]) which satisfies the claim.
MARSHALL teaches that the bioactive glasses of its invention promote the formation of apatite in aqueous environments ([0035]) facilitating a self-sealing mechanism in the bonded interface ([0035]). This is consistent with the recited requirement of the formation of apatite in the layer between the dental material and a tooth structure. MARSHALL teaches that the formulation of carbonated hydroxyapatite creates a bond between the bioactive glass and the dentin ([0038]). MARSHALL does not specifically teach a time scale for this hydroxyapatite formation, but MARSHALL teaches an example containing the bioactive glass 45S5 which exhibits an increase in shear bonding strength compared with the negative control when left overnight (Table 2). Because MARSHALL teaches that bioactive glass promotes apatite formation, and that apatite formation leads to increased bonding strength, then the increased bonding strength taught by MARSHALL in exemplary compositions left overnight is evidence that apatite formation has occurred during the exemplary overnight time period. This time period is within the period of about three days that is recited by the claim.
MARSHALL does not teach that Bioglass 45S5 provides an anticaries effect. Here, DENG is used as an evidentiary reference to disclose the inherent anticaries property of the Bioglass 45S5 taught by MARSHALL. DENG teaches that 45S5 bioglass (BG)(Abstract) has been shown capable of inhibiting and reversing initial caries progression in enamel (p. 104, Col 1, par. 1). This satisfies the requirement of an anticaries effect from the calcium sodium phosphosilicate.
MARSHALL teaches a non-aqueous solvent ([0029]) and teaches that the water content of the solvent is selected so that the reaction of the bioactive glass with water in the solvent is insignificant and may be so low as to avoid such a reaction ([0034]). MARSHALL teaches that its non-aqueous solvent preferably contains less than 5% water by volume, less than 1% water by volume and may contain no detectable water ([0019]).
MARSHALL teaches several specific acidic monomers ([0071]) as well several polymerizable monomers which typically form the basis of its dental resins ([0017]), but MARSHALL does not teach amount of its polymerizable components in its dental bonding composition. DICKENS, in an invention of a remineralizing dental cement containing calcium and phosphate ions and resin monomers (Abstract) where ions are taken up by tooth dentin and enamel to form hydroxyapatite when exposed to moisture ([32]), teaches that its composition contains 5-75wt% of the source of calcium and phosphate ions ([14]), 5-65wt% of adhesive resin monomers with the remainder being base resin monomer, diluent resin monomer and initiator components ([14]). DICKENS does not have a general teaching for the amounts of its initiator components and other additives, but exemplifies photoinitiators (CQ), co-initiators (DMAPE), other catalysts (BPO) and inihibitors (BHT) in total amounts of less than 4 total percent (Tables 1-2, 6-9). This combined with the 5-75% of the source of calcium and phosphate ions suggests a remaining weight percentage of all monomers of 21-95 wt% which encompasses the recited range of 50-60wt%. DICKENS further teaches that PMGDM is a preferred adhesive resin monomer ([41]) and includes PMGDM in all of its examples (Tables 1-2, 6-9). DICKENS teaches exemplary compositions containing 16.5 wt% PMGDM and 7.5+16.5+27.5 = 51.5wt% of all monomers (Table 7) and 5wt% PMGDM and 5+5+41 = 52wt% of all monomers (Table 9). These two examples both satisfy the recited 50-60wt% of polymerizable compounds with one example teaching PMGDM above the recited 9wt% and one example below the recited 9wt%. DICKENS teaches that its dental cement formulations act as strong dental adhesives which prevent or reduce demineralization ([24]) and allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel ([32]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include a polymerizable organic compound component which includes PMGDM in the range taught by DICKENS in its examples that is also within the range recited by the claim for the purpose of providing a strong dental adhesive which prevents or reduces demineralization and allows for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel.
MARSHALL teaches that in some cases, its composition contains photo-initiators to allow the adhesive to be cured by exposing the adhesive to light ([0077]) but does not specifically teach an initiator system containing a photo-initiator and a co-initiator. DICKENS teaches photoinitiators ([43]) and exemplifies camphorquinone (Tables 1-2, 6-8). DICKENS further teaches co-initiators ([45]) and exemplifies DMAPE (Tables 1-2, 6-8). DICKENS teaches that its co-initiator reacts with the catalyst and/or photoinitiator to accelerate polymerization of the resin monomers ([45]). It would be obvious to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include a photoinitiator and co-initiator for the purpose of accelerating polymerization of the resin monomers.
Regarding Claim 3, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1. MARSHALL teaches embodiments where the dental bonding composition may be provided in a single container ([0094]). MARSHALL teaches use of its composition as a dental bonding composition ([0057]) which satisfies the requirement of an adhesive. DICKENS also teaches that its compositions may be made by mixing together one paste ([52]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1. MARSHALL teaches that its bioactive glasses promote apatite formation, such as hydroxyapatite, in aqueous environments that contain calcium and phosphate ([0035],[0038]]), but MARSHALL does not specifically teach that its calcium sodium phosphosilicate further comprises a secondary source of biologically active ions. DICKENS teaches that its calcium and phosphate ions may be provided as a single compound or can be a mixture of multiple compounds ([35]) and allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel ([32]). DICKENS exemplifies using multiple sources of calcium and phosphate ions (Table 9: DCPA and TTCP). It would be obvious to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include multiple source of calcium and phosphate ions for the purpose of allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel.
Regarding Claim 12, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1. MARSHALL teaches that its bioactive glasses promote apatite formation, such as hydroxyapatite, in aqueous environments that contain calcium and phosphate ([0035],[0038]]), but MARSHALL does not specifically teach that its calcium sodium phosphosilicate further comprises a secondary source of biologically active ions. DICKENS teaches that its calcium and phosphate ions may be provided as a single compound or can be a mixture of multiple compounds ([35]) and allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel ([32]). DICKENS teaches that its calcium ions may come from sources which include dicalcium phosphate and tricalcium phosphate ([35]) and addition calcium ions can be provided from calcium carbonate ([36]) and calcium aluminosilicate ([36]) which is a calcium silicate. It would be obvious to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include multiple source of calcium and phosphate ions for the purpose of allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel.
Regarding Claim 18, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1. MARSHALL teaches the inclusion of bioactive glass Bioglass 45S5 ([0045]) which the specification teaches is a source of slow-releasing biologically active calcium and phosphate ions (cur spec: [0117]). MARSHALL does not measure the amount of calcium released by its composition, but one would inherently expect that the bioglass 45S5 component taught by MARSHALL would release calcium and phosphate ions within the range recited by the claim because it is the same compound used in the instant examples (cur spec: Tables 1-4). DICKENS also teaches the release of calcium and phosphate ions ([25], [36]).
Regarding Claim 21, MARSHALL teaches a dental bonding composition for bonding a dental resin composite to dentin ([0028]) containing a bioactive glass, a non-aqueous solvent and acidic monomers ([0030]). MARSHALL teaches several specific acidic monomers ([0071]) as well several polymerizable monomers which typically form the basis of its dental resins ([0017]).
MARSHALL teaches that the bioactive glasses of its invention promote the formation of apatite in aqueous environments ([0035]) facilitating a self-sealing mechanism in the bonded interface ([0035]). This is consistent with the recited requirement of the formation of apatite in the layer between the dental material and a tooth structure. MARSHALL teaches that the formulation of carbonated hydroxyapatite creates a bond between the bioactive glass and the dentin ([0038]). MARSHALL does not specifically teach a time scale for this hydroxyapatite formation, but MARSHALL teaches an example containing the bioactive glass 45S5 which exhibits an increase in shear bonding strength compared with the negative control when left overnight (Table 2). Because MARSHALL teaches that bioactive glass promotes apatite formation, and that apatite formation leads to increased bonding strength, then the increased bonding strength taught by MARSHALL in exemplary compositions left overnight is evidence that apatite formation has occurred during the exemplary overnight time period. This time period is within the period of about three days that is recited by the claim.
MARSHALL teaches the bioactive glass Bioglass 45S5 ([0045]) which is the same bioactive glass used in the current invention (cur spec: [0106]). Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence to show that the Bioglass 45S5 taught by MARSHALL is a source of slow-releasing biologically active calcium and phosphate ions (cur spec: [0117]) which satisfies the claim. MARSHALL teaches that Bioglass 45S5 is a bioactive glass composed of 49.5% SiO2 , 17.0% NaO, 26.9% CaO, and 6.6% P2O5 ([0045]). The presence of phosphate ions along with silicon, calcium and sodium oxides suggests that Bioglass 45S5 is a calcium sodium phosphosilicate. The absence of fluoride makes it substantially fluoride free. MARSHALL does not teach that Bioglass 45S5 provides an anticaries effect. Here, DENG is used as an evidentiary reference to disclose the inherent anticaries property of the Bioglass 45S5 taught by MARSHALL. DENG teaches that 45S5 bioglass (BG)(Abstract) has been shown capable of inhibiting and reversing initial caries progression in enamel (p. 104, Col 1, par. 1). This satisfies the requirement of an anticaries effect from the calcium sodium phosphosilicate.
MARSHALL teaches several specific acidic monomers ([0071]) as well several polymerizable monomers which typically form the basis of its dental resins ([0017]), but MARSHALL does not teach amount of its polymerizable components in its dental bonding composition. DICKENS, in an invention of a remineralizing dental cement containing calcium and phosphate ions and resin monomers (Abstract) where ions are taken up by tooth dentin and enamel to form hydroxyapatite when exposed to moisture ([32]), teaches that its composition contains 5-75% of the source of calcium and phosphate ions ([14]) with the remainder being monomer and initiator components ([14]). DICKENS does not have a general teaching for the amounts of its initiator components and other additives, but exemplifies photoinitiators (CQ), co-initiators (DMAPE), other catalysts (BPO) and inihibitors (BHT) in total amounts of less than 4 total percent (Tables 1-2, 6-9). This combined with the 5-75% of the source of calcium and phosphate ions suggests a remaining weight percentage of monomers of 21-95 wt% which encompasses the recited range of 50-60wt%. DICKENS further teaches that PMGDM is a preferred adhesive resin monomer ([41]) and includes PMGDM in all of its examples (Tables 1-2, 6-9). DICKENS teaches an exemplary composition (Table 7) containing PMGDM and other monomers in amounts of 7.5+16.5+27.5 = 51.5 wt% which is within the recited range. DICKENS teaches that its dental cement formulations act as strong dental adhesives which prevent or reduce demineralization ([24]) and allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel ([32]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include a polymerizable organic compound component which includes PMGDM in an amount within the recited range for the purpose of providing a strong dental adhesive which prevents or reduces demineralization and allows for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel.
MARSHALL teaches that in some cases, its composition contains photo-initiators to allow the adhesive to be cured by exposing the adhesive to light ([0077]) but does not specifically teach an initiator system containing a photo-initiator and a co-initiator. DICKENS teaches photoinitiators ([43]) and exemplifies camphorquinone (Tables 1-2, 6-8). DICKENS further teaches co-initiators ([45]) and exemplifies DMAPE (Tables 1-2, 6-8). DICKENS teaches that its co-initiator reacts with the catalyst and/or photoinitiator to accelerate polymerization of the resin monomers ([45]). It would be obvious to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include a photoinitiator and co-initiator for the purpose of accelerating polymerization of the resin monomers.
MARSHALL teaches that its bioactive glasses promote apatite formation, such as hydroxyapatite, in aqueous environments that contain calcium and phosphate ([0035],[0038]]), but MARSHALL does not specifically teach that its calcium sodium phosphosilicate further comprises a secondary source of biologically active ions. DICKENS teaches that its calcium and phosphate ions may be provided as a single compound or can be a mixture of multiple compounds ([35]) and allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel ([32]). DICKENS exemplifies using multiple sources of calcium and phosphate ions (Table 9: DCPA and TTCP). It would be obvious to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of DICKENS and include multiple source of calcium and phosphate ions for the purpose of allow for hydroxyapatite formation on dentin and enamel.
Regarding Claim 23, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 21. MARSHALL teaches embodiments where the dental bonding composition may be provided in a single container ([0094]). MARSHALL teaches use of its composition as a dental bonding composition ([0057]) which satisfies the requirement of an adhesive. DICKENS also teaches that its compositions may be made by mixing together one paste ([52]).
Regarding Claim 27, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 21 where DICKENS teaches that its calcium ions for hydroxyapatite formation can come from multiple sources. DICKENS teaches that its calcium ions may come from sources which include dicalcium phosphate and tricalcium phosphate ([35]) and addition calcium ions can be provided from calcium carbonate ([36]) and calcium aluminosilicate ([36]) which is a calcium silicate.
Regarding Claim 29, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 21. MARSHALL teaches a non-aqueous solvent ([0029]) and teaches that the water content of the solvent is selected so that the reaction of the bioactive glass with water in the solvent is insignificant and may be so low as to avoid such a reaction ([0034]). MARSHALL teaches that its solvent may be acetone ([0049], [0065]) or ethanol ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 32, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 21. MARSHALL teaches a non-aqueous solvent ([0029]) and teaches that the water content of the solvent is selected so that the reaction of the bioactive glass with water in the solvent is insignificant and may be so low as to avoid such a reaction ([0034]). MARSHALL teaches that its non-aqueous solvent preferably contains less than 15% water by volume ([0019]). This overlaps the recited amount of about 5wt%. An amount of water that is about 5wt% is an obvious modification of the invention of MARSHALL.
Regarding Claim 44, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1 where DICKENS teaches the photoinitiator, including camphorquinone ([43]). DICKENS exemplifies camphorquinone (CQ) in amounts of 0.24wt% (Table 1), 0.2wt% (Table 2), 0.15wt% (Table 6), 0.15 wt% (Table 7), 0.15wt% (Table 8) and 0.2wt% (Table 9) which are all within the 0.05-0.5wt% recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 48, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1. MARSHALL teaches a non-aqueous solvent ([0029]) and teaches that the water content of the solvent is selected so that the reaction of the bioactive glass with water in the solvent is insignificant and may be so low as to avoid such a reaction ([0034]). MARSHALL teaches that its non-aqueous solvent preferably contains less than 15% water by volume ([0019]). This overlaps the recited amount of about 5wt%. An amount of water that is about 4.5wt% is an obvious modification of the invention of MARSHALL.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARSHALL (US-20090197221-A1) in view of DICKENS (WO-2005002531-A1) as evidenced by DENG (Int. J. Oral Sci, 5, 103-110 (2013)) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of BOWEN (US-5789610-A).
Regarding Claim 47, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1 above where DICKENS teaches the coinitiator ([045]). DICKENS exemplifies the DMAPE coinitiator ([45]) in amounts of 0.184wt% (Table 1), 0.3 wt% (Table 2), 0.2 wt% (Table 6), 0.2 wt% (Table 7), 0.2 wt% (Table 8), 0.15 wt% (Table 9) but DICKENS does not specifically teach the ethyl 4-(dimethylamino)benzoate coinitiator. DICKENS generally teaches that its co-initiators can include tertiary amines of the general structure R1R2-N-C6H4-X where R1 and R2 are the same or different and may be alkyl or alkyl alcohol and X is an electron withdrawing group. This structure includes the recited ethyl 4-(dimethylamino)benzoate where R1=R2=methyl and the electron withdrawing group is -C(=O)-O-C2H5. DICKENS does not specifically include carboxylate-ester groups in its teachings of electron withdrawing groups. In an invention cited by MARSHALL ([0052]), BOWEN, in an invention of an adhesive bonding resin to tooth or other tissues (Col 6: 44-45), teaches an initiator system containing camphorquinone and a tertiary amine (Col 7: 35-40), teaches an exemplary composition containing PMGDM monomer and 0.2% camphorquinone and 1.3% N,N-dimethylaminoethylbenzoate (Col 19: 20-25). This amount is within the 0.1-2.4wt% that is recited by the claim. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of BOWEN and use the N,N-dimethylaminoethylbenzoate as its coinitiator for the purpose of polymerizing the PMGDM-containing resin.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARSHALL (US-20090197221-A1) in view of DICKENS (WO-2005002531-A1) as evidenced by DENG (Int. J. Oral Sci, 5, 103-110 (2013)) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of HOLMES (EP-0533434-B1).
Regarding Claim 47, modified MARSHALL teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. MARSHALL discusses pigment leaching ([0130]) but does not specifically teach a pigment or an amount of a pigment. DICKENS teaches pigments including titanium dioxide ([48]) but does not teach an amount. HOLMES, in an invention of materials used to pigment cold-polymerizable dental composites, restoratives or cements ([0001]), teaches titanium dioxide as a microfine titania filler ([0002]). HOLMES suggests that this pigment provides and aesthetic effect (Title, [0008]). HOLMES teaches that its microfine titania filler is present in dental cements in amounts of 0.05-2.5 wt% ([0021]) which encompasses the 0.4-0.8 wt% that is recited by the claim. HOLMES exemplifies 0.4wt% ([0032], Table 1) which is on the endpoint of the recited range. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of MARSHALL with the teachings of HOLMES and include an amount of titanium dioxide which is within the recited range for the purpose of pigmenting the dental composition and adding an aesthetic effect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 and 46 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the 112(b) rejection, for the purpose of identifying allowable subject matter, Claim 1 is interpreted as containing polymerizable organic compounds in an amount of from about 50% to about 60% by weight of the bioactive dental material and also containing PMGDM in an amount of about 9 (w/w%) of the bioactive dental material.
The closest prior art, MARSHALL (US-20090197221-A1), cited in the rejections above, teaches a dental bonding composition containing polymerizable monomer, water, ethanol, and the same bioactive calcium sodium phosphosilicate glass used in the instant examples which forms a mineral apatite layer between the bioactive glass and dentin. DICKENS (WO-2005002531-A1), cited in the rejections above, teaches dental adhesive resins for remineralizing compositions where calcium and phosphate ions are released which make obvious the recited amounts of polymerizable monomer and the specific PMGDM monomer. While MARSHALL teaches adhesive resins with high shear bond strength, DICKENS teaches resins with a shear bond strength that is well below the amounts recited in Claim 16 and Claim 17. There is not sufficient evidence to make the required modifications to the invention of MARSHALL to meet the required amounts of PMGDM and other polymerizable monomer thought would still obtain the shear bond strength values that are recited in Claim 16 and Claim 17. MARSHALL teaches an ethanol solvent but does not teach an amount of ethanol of about 18wt% that is recited by Claim 46. DICKENS does not teach ethanol which is required by Claim 46. RUSIN (US-20090317772-A1), cited in the previous office action, makes obvious the amount of polymerizable monomer and teaches ethanol, but RUSIN does not teach the PMGDM monomer which is required by Claims 16-17 and Claim 46.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect the Claim 1, Claim 21 and their dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendments to Claims 44-45 replacing “above” with “about” and using “the” to link components to those previously recited in Claim 1 have resolved the indefiniteness of these claims. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The amendment to Claim 48 reciting a different amount for water has resolved the issue where the amount recited in Claim 48 contradicted the amount for water that is recited in Claim 1. The rejection under 35 USC 112(d) has been withdrawn.
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights