DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 17/757,544. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25-27 and 29-39 are pending.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 19, 21, 24, and 28 are cancelled.
Claims 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25-27, and 29-39 are examined.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 38 be found allowable, claim 39 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 14, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler (U.S. Publication 2004/0031225) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., Preparation and Surface Properties Study of Novel Fluorine-Containing Methacrylate Polymers for Coating, 11/13/2018, obtained from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6266613/), Allewaert et al. (U.S. Patent 5,344,956), and Deligny et al. (Deligny et al., New Water Based Alkyd Dispersion Technology, PCI Paint & Coatings Industry, 10/01/2012, https://www.pcimag.com/articles/96938-new-water-based-alkyd-dispersion-technology#:~:text=Conclusion,visit%20www.cytec.com.).
Regarding claim 14, Fowler discloses a decorative panel (#10) comprising a covering or treatment (#60) on at least one side edge of the panel (see figure 2), wherein said covering or treatment comprises a fluoroacrylate polymer (see paragraph 62, where the barrier composition #60 can comprise a fluoroacrylate polymer), wherein the decorative panel comprises a substrate layer including a substrate material having locally higher density at two opposite surfaces of the decorative panel and lower density in a middle of both opposite surface (core/substrate #17 of the panel #10 is formed from MDF or HDF, see paragraph 22, due to the heat and pressure from manufacturing such panels so as to form faces which are tightly packed and higher density than the central area of the substrate). However, Fowler does not specifically disclose the fluoroacrylate polymer comprises a perfluorocarbon.
It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Zhang et al., that fluorine-containing acrylate polymers are known and used for their high hydrophobicity and used as a coating material for water and oil repellency. Though long perfluoroalkyl chains exhibit excellent performance as a coating, such long chain compounds are beginning to be banned from use due to their environmental impact and thus instead short-term fluorocarbon chains, such as one formed by perfluoro-2-methyl-2-pentene, have instead been developed to achieve a certain degree of water and oil repellency while having a better environmental impact. See section 1, Introduction. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a perfluorocarbon within the fluoroacrylate polymer of Fowler, such as perfluoro-2-methyl-2-pentene as taught in Zhang et al., in order to provide a more environmentally friendly coating for such surfaces while still maintaining the water repellency needed for such surfaces and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to the limitations defining the fluoroacrylate polymer comprising an alkyd resin, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Deligny et al., that alkyd resins combined with acrylic and/or urethane modified resins provide a water resistant coating intended for use on wood substrates, where such an alkyd base provides excellent hydrophobic and extended durability properties. See pages 1-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an alkyd resin within the fluoroacrylate polymer of Fowler, as taught in Deligny et al., in order to provide better hydrophobic characteristics to the coating and provide better corrosion resistance to the overall coating.
Furthermore, paragraph 50 of Fowler discloses that water is the primary solvent within the composition #6 and any suitable solvent can be used for the dilution of the composition, but does not specifically disclose a solvent-based mixture that includes alkanes as solvents, glycol ether and the fluoroacrylate as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Allewaert et al., that instead of using water to dilute a fluoroacrylate polymer for spraying (see col. 8., ll.14-26), environmentally acceptable solvents can be used instead, which can include glycol ethers to emulsify the monomer of the compound (see col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 3) along with organic solvents that can include ketone, ester, aromatic solvents, and alkane, halogenated hydrocarbons, or acetomitrile. See col. 5, ll. 51-61. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a solvent based mixture with the polymer of Fowler in place of the water, where such a solvent includes alkanes and glycol ester, as taught in Allewaert et al., in order to provide known, environmentally acceptable solvents in order to properly emulsify the polymer for spraying and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Applicant removed reference to the water-based mixture for such a covering/treatment, where the originally filed claims and specification disclose that either the water based or solvent based mixture can be used for such a covering and thus does not provide any criticality to the type of mixture used within the covering in order to allow for spraying of such a polymer covering on the panel.
Regarding claim 18, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the solvent-based mixture has a flash point of 35 degrees Celsius or more (Col. 7, ll. 38-48 of Allewaert et al. disclose the process for polymerization of the fluoro copolymers in an organic solvent is carried out between 50 and 110 degrees Celsius and thus it would have been obvious to have provided the solvent-based mixture with a flash point of 35 degrees Celsius or more within the prior art in order to properly polymerize the polymer within the solution.).
Regarding claim 20, Fowler in view of Zhang et al. Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the solvents and additives in the solvent-based mixture are exclusively of the aliphatic type, or, that a proportion of solvent and additive of an aromatic type in the solvent-based mixture is less than 1000 ppm (as explained above, since Allewaert et al. teach use of alkanes and ethylene glycol ethers within the solvent-based mixture and all alkanes and ethylene glycol ethers are aliphatic, such a prior art combination is considered to meet the first part of the “or” clause).
Regarding claim 22, Fowler in view of Zhang et al. Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the alkyd resin is urethane or isocyanate modified (Deligny et al. disclose in pages 1-3 that such alkyd resins can include modified urethane resin, where such features would be provided within Fowler as explained above).
Regarding claim 25, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the panel has at least two opposite side edges comprising coupling means (Fowler; #20 and #22), which allow two such panels to be coupled at the relevant side edges (see figure 3 of Fowler), wherein, in the coupled condition an interlocking comes into existence in a direction normal to a plane of the coupled plane of the coupled panels and/or an interlocking in a direction in the plane of the panels and normal to the coupled side edges (see figure 3 of Fowler, where interlocking occurs in the horizontal and vertical directions).
Regarding claim 26, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the panel is a floor panel chosen from the list consisting of: floor panels with a porous or moisture-absorbing substrate, including MDF, HDF, MgO, cement fiberboard, or foamed substrates including thermoplastic foamed substrates; floor panels with a decorative top layer, including a print, wherein the decorative top layer is directly or indirectly fixed to an underlying substrate (figure 1 of Fowler depicts such panels #10 comprise of a decorative layer #18 with a desired aesthetic appearance of color and/or pattern, where such a layer #18 is directly attached to core/substrate #17; see paragraph 23); floor panels with a decorative top layer comprising a wood veneer or a layer of wood, with any wood veneer having a thickness of 0.4 to 0.8 mm; and floor panels for composing a floating floor covering, with an MDF or HDF substrate, or with a thermoplastic substrate (paragraph 22 of Fowler discloses use of MDF or HDF for such a substrate and such panels are configured for use as a floating floor covering).
Regarding claim 34, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the alkyd resin is a medium or long-chain resin (Though Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. do not specifically disclose whether such alkyd resin is short, medium, or long-chain resin, each one of such types of chains provides its own characteristics that would affect the overall and which characteristics can be chosen by the user of such a coating as needed. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that short chain alkyd resins provide fast drying times and low flexibility, medium chain alkyd resins provide moderate drying times and better flexibility than short chains, and long chains comprise slower drying times but have excellent exterior environment performance, such as weather resistance, and high flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a long chain alkyd resin for such a prior art coating in order to increase the weather resistance and durability of such a coating during use and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).).
Regarding claim 35, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the decorative panel further comprises a decorative top layer (Fowler; #18) on a first surface of the top opposite surfaces (see figure 2 of Fowler, where the decorative layer #18 is provided on the top surface of the core/substrate #17).
Regarding claim 36, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the decorative top layer is bonded to the substrate without additional intermediate glue or resin layers (Paragraph 20 of Fowler discloses the decorative layer 18 can be adhered, joined or coupled to the core #17 through chemical adhesive, mechanical connection or other means known in the art, where the mechanical connection, such as through heat and pressure, would not include an additional intermediate glue.).
Regarding claim 37, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the decorative top layer comprises a decorative paper (Fowler; #18, see paragraph 24) with a transparent thermosetting resin overlay (Fowler teaches in paragraph 25 that such an overlay can comprise of a transparent wear layer #19 over the decorative layer paper #18. Alternatively, paragraph 24 of Fowler discloses the paper of the decorative layer #18 can be impregnated with a thermosetting resin of any desired aesthetic color, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a transparent resin overlay for the decorative paper layer of Fowler to provide aesthetics as wanted by the end user.).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., Deligny et al., and Nelson et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0194807).
Regarding claim 23, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for the solvent-based mixture comprises a liquid colorant, or at least a colorant free from solid pigments. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Nelson et al., that the sealant applied to the edges of a floorboard can comprise of a color which is different from the color of the panel in order to visibly distinguish it from the flooring panels. See paragraph 57. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the coating of Fowler et al. to comprise of a liquid colorant, as taught in Nelson et al., in order to ensure proper coverage and covering of the side edges of the panels during such an application step.
Claim(s) 27 and 29-32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al.
Regarding claim 27, Fowler discloses a decorative panel (#10) comprising a covering or treatment (#60) on at least one side edge of the panel (see figure 2), wherein said covering or treatment comprises a fluoroacrylate polymer (see paragraph 62, where the barrier composition #60 can comprise a fluoroacrylate polymer), wherein the decorative panel comprises a substrate layer including a substrate material having locally higher density at two opposite surfaces of the decorative panel and lower density in a middle of both opposite surface (core/substrate #17 of the panel #10 is formed from MDF or HDF, see paragraph 22, due to the heat and pressure from manufacturing such panels so as to form faces which are tightly packed and higher density than the central area of the substrate).
Paragraph 50 of Fowler discloses that water is the primary solvent within the composition #6 and any suitable solvent can be used within such a solution, but does not specifically disclose a solvent-based mixture that includes alkanes as solvents, glycol ether and the fluoroacrylate as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Allewaert et al., that instead of using water to dilute a fluoroacrylate polymer for spraying (see col. 8., ll.14-26), environmentally acceptable solvents can be used instead, which can include glycol ethers to emulsify the monomer of the compound (see col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 3) along with organic solvents that can include ketone, ester, aromatic solvents, and alkane, halogenated hydrocarbons, or acetomitrile. See col. 5, ll. 51-61. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a solvent based mixture with the polymer of Fowler in place of the water, where such a solvent includes alkanes and glycol ester, as taught in Allewaert et al., in order to provide known, environmentally acceptable solvents in order to properly emulsify the polymer for spraying and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Applicant removed reference to the water-based mixture for such a covering/treatment, where the originally filed claims and specification disclose that either the water based or solvent based mixture can be used for such a covering and thus do not provide any criticality to the type of mixture used within the covering in order to allow for spraying of such a polymer covering on the panel.
With respect to the limitations defining the fluoroacrylate polymer comprising an alkyd resin, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Deligny et al., that alkyd resins combined with acrylic and/or urethane modified resins provide a water resistant coating intended for use on wood substrates, where such an alkyd base provides excellent hydrophobic and extended durability properties. See pages 1-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an alkyd within the fluoroacrylate polymer of Fowler, as taught in Deligny et al., in order to provide better hydrophobic characteristics to the coating and provide better corrosion resistance to the overall coating.
Regarding claim 29, Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al. render obvious the solvent-based mixture has a flash point of 35 degrees Celsius or more (Col. 7, ll. 38-48 of Allewaert et al. disclose the process for polymerization of the fluoro copolymers in an organic solvent is carried out between 50 and 110 degrees Celsius and thus it would have been obvious to have provided the solvent-based mixture with a flash point of 35 degrees Celsius or more in order to properly polymerize the polymer within the solution.).
Regarding claim 30, Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al. render obvious the solvents and additives in the solvent-based mixture are exclusively of the aliphatic type, or, that a proportion of solvent and additive of an aromatic type in the solvent-based mixture is less than 1000 ppm (as explained above, since Allewaert et al. teach use of alkanes and ethylene glycol ethers within the solvent-based mixture and all alkanes and ethylene glycol ethers are aliphatic, such a prior art combination is considered to meet the first part of the “or” clause).
Regarding claim 31, Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al. render obvious the alkyd resin is a medium or long-chain resin (Though Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al. do not specifically disclose whether such alkyd resin is short, medium, or long-chain resin, each one of such types of chains provides its own characteristics that would affect the overall and one of ordinary skill in the art can choose either of such chain lengths to provide the characteristics as needed in the coating in its final use. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that short chain alkyd resins provide fast drying times and low flexibility, medium chain alkyd resins provide moderate drying times and better flexibility than short chains, and long chains comprise slower drying times but have excellent exterior environment performance, such as weather resistance, and high flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a long chain alkyd resin for such a prior art coating in order to increase the weather resistance and durability of such a coating during use and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).).
Regarding claim 32, Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al. render obvious the alkyd resin is urethane or isocyanate modified (Deligny et al. disclose in pages 1-3 that such alkyd resins can include modified urethane resin, where such features would be provided within Fowler as explained above).
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Allewaert et al., Deligny et al., and Nelson et al.
Regarding claim 33, Fowler in view of Allewaert et al. and Deligny et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for the solvent-based mixture comprises a liquid colorant, or at least a colorant free from solid pigments. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Nelson et al., that the sealant applied to the edges of a floor board can comprise of a color which is different from the color of the panel in order to visibly distinguish it from the flooring panels. See paragraph 57. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the coating of Fowler et al. to comprise of a liquid colorant, as taught in Nelson et al., in order to ensure proper coverage and covering of the side edges of the panels during such an application step.
Claim(s) 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al., or in the alternative in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., Deligny et al., Nelson et al., and European Panel Federation (European Panel Federation, “Medium Density Fiberboard”, https://europanels.org/the-wood-based-panel-industry/types-of-wood-based-panels-economic-impact/medium-density-fibreboard/, published 07/24/2019, obtained from https://web.archive.org/web/20190724021720/https://europanels.org/the-wood-based-panel-industry/types-of-wood-based-panels-economic-impact/medium-density-fibreboard/).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Fowler in view of Zhang et al., Allewaert et al., and Deligny et al. render obvious the locally higher density is at least 110% and the lower density is lower than 90% of the average density of the substrate material (As taught by the present specification, such higher and lower densities are imparted upon such a substrate due to the common manufacturing methods of such MDF and HDF boards, where Fowler teaches use of MDF and HDF for a substrate and thus would similarly comprise of such densities based on the common manufacturing methods of such boards. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Fowler as meeting such limitations, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by European Panel Federation, that medium density fiberboard is constructed so as to comprise of a face density of 1000 – 1100kg/m3 and a core density of 600 – 700kg/m3, with an average density of 700 – 800kg/m3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the MDF substrate of Fowler to comprise of surface and core densities that meet the ranges as defined, as taught in European Panel Federation, in order to construct such a substrate to industry standards in order to properly support foot traffic as needed.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Fowler teaches the use of a medium density or high density fiberboard but does not mention any density difference within the substrate” so as to meet the newly added claim limitations, the manufacturing process for such MDF and HDF panels is such that the substrate of such panels inherently comprises of outer surfaces which are of a higher density than the material in the central portion of the substrate due to the heat and pressure applied to such surfaces to bond the materials together. Thus, Fowler is considered to inherently meet such limitations as broadly defined. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
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). In the present instance, for example, Applicant argues that the Zhang et al. reference does not suggest any functional cooperation with alkyd resin or the solvents within such a compound as defined; however, Zhang et al. was not used to teach such an alkyd resin addition to the fluoroacrylate polymer or the solvents but instead was used to teach that a specific perfluorocarbon can be used within the fluoroacrylate polymer of Fowler for environmental purposes. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “a design-choice rationale cannot apply where the modification alters the manner of operation of the mixture or its performance relative to the substrate,” both Fowler and Zhang et al. disclose use of fluoracrylate polymers as such a coating/barrier composition for use to provide water protection to a substrate. Though Zhang et al. does not specifically disclose use of such a coating on a floor panel, the top of page 2 of Zhang et al. teaches that such coating materials are used in textiles, coatings, leather, and other fields, where Fowler already teaches the inherent use of such a coating in the floorboard art. Furthermore, Zhang et al. teach a more environmentally friendly, less toxic base polymer element to use within such fluorine containing acrylate polymers of the coating and thus would help benefit the coating of Fowler to be less toxic. Such a modification of Fowler in view of Zhang et al. is thus a simple substitution of the polymer used in the fluorine containing acrylate polymer of the Fowler reference, where the polymers of both Zhang et al. and Fowler are to perform the same function of oil and water repellency and thus the modifications and rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Zhang et al. and Fowler disclose use of waterborne alkyd dispersions and there is no reason to replace the aqueous environment with the particular alkane and glycol either solvent system as defined, col. 2, ll.18-22 of Allewaert et al. teach that fluoroacrylate polymers can be used with solvents such as water, but environmentally acceptable solvents can also be used instead, which solvents can include glycol ethers to emulsify the monomer of the compound (see col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 3) along with organic solvents that can include ketone, ester, aromatic solvents, and alkane, halogenated hydrocarbons, or acetomitrile. See col. 5, ll. 51-61. Allewaert et al. provide alternative environmentally acceptable solvents which can be used in place of the water solvent of Fowler in order to properly emulsify the polymer for spraying. Again, though Applicant removed reference to the water-based mixture for such a covering/treatment within the claimed invention, the originally filed claims and specification disclose that either the water based or solvent based mixture can be used for such a covering and thus does not provide any criticality to the type of mixture used within the covering in order to allow for spraying of such a polymer covering on the panel. Such solvents are disclosed as substitutions for one another in the prior art of record as well as in the present specification and thus the modifications and rejections are considered proper.
Such arguments can also be applied to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching or motivation to lead a person skilled in the art to replace the water-based system of Fowler with a non-aqueous mixture of alkanes and glycol ether. As explained above, Applicant removed reference to the water-based mixture for such a covering/treatment within the claimed invention, where the originally filed claims and specification disclose that either the water based or solvent based mixture can be used for such a covering and thus does not provide any criticality to the type of mixture used within the covering in order to allow for spraying of such a polymer covering on the panel. Such solvents are disclosed as substitutions for one another in the prior art of record as well as in the present specification and thus the modifications and rejections are considered proper, where Allewaert et al. teach the motivation and obviousness of substituting such water and solvents for one another.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Allewaert et al. do not teach the flash point of the finished solvent-based mixture, the flash point of such a mixture would have to be higher than that used to carry out polymerization in order to provide safety and prevent fire or explosions during the manufacturing process. Furthermore, Applicant’s use of a flash point of 35 degrees or more would be considered common in the art in order to prevent hazardous environments as such floorboards would be used in locations which can reach 35 degrees, or more, on a typical, daily basis. The prior art of record is thus considered to meet such limitations as broadly defined and thus renders the claimed invention obvious as explained above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Nelson does not disclose or suggest anything about the chemical form of the colorant, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the colorant has a chemical form) 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). All the claim requires is that a colorant be provided, where such a colorant is applied in liquid form, where Nelson teaches the obviousness of using colorant within the solvent and such a solvent is applied in liquid form and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights