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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-14 and 18-25 are pending. Claims 18-23 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of present claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (WO 2019/010291; “Blazer”) in view of Zerafati et al. (US 2012/0045603) have been fully considered but they are found not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contents that (1) there is no motivation to combine Blazer and Zerafati, because per applicant, a person of skill in the art would not consider replacing the soft polymer rod of Blazer which exhibits low tensile (flexural) strength thereby preventing crush force with the stiff with the self-supporting rod of Zerafati exhibiting high flexural strength and stiffness with the expectation of success (remarks, page 2, last two paragraphs). In this connection, it is noted that Applicant asserts, for Zerafati invention, the foamed article is self-supporting and able to carry loads, and to achieve this, the foamed article needs to retain a sufficiently high flexural strength (remarks, page 2, last two paragraphs). Applicant further asserts, for the invention of Blazer, the foamed article needs to have low tensile strength to prevent stresses from being transferred to sub-units (remarks, page 2, last two paragraphs).
In response to contention (1), Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
First of all, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Zerafati. While there is no dispute that the secondary reference Zerafati teaches its foamed article is self-supporting and able to carry loads, the fact that the foam of Zerafati is self-supporting at certain foam level does not mean such self-supporting of Zerafati is inherently “too stiff”, nor does it preclude a reasonable expectation of success when using such a foam in the filler rod of Blazer, contrary to applicant’s assertion.
In the present case, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making various rods or profiles that could carry loads as desired (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches the mechanical properties of its foam are variable and controllable, as Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]). Zerafati also teaches an advantage of PVDF foamed structure is their increased flexibility (para [0067]). Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that the foam of Zerafati is “too stiff” for use as the foamed filler rod of Blazer is not found persuasive.
Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). MPEP 2141 and 2143. In the present case, the primary reference Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod, Blazer does not specifically teach its foamed rod is made of the specific foam material as instantly claimed, i.e., a foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition, with the specific density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer due to foaming, as instantly claimed.
In the same field of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride article, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]), which density reduction % falls within the instantly claimed range of from 5% to 70% reduction of instant claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer foam with suitable density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer in view the teachings of Zerafati, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (WO 2019/010291; “Blazer”) in view of Zerafati et al. (US 2012/0045603).
Regarding claim 1, Blazer teaches an optical fiber filler rod (150, Fig. 6, para [0090] [0002]) includes a foamed filler rod of foamed material (para [0090], the filler rod 150 is a foamed filler rod) and a strength member (116, Fig. 6), wherein the filler rod (150) is not hollow (see Fig. 6, para [0090], Blazer teaches a cable with the inclusion of a support structure of a foam filler rod (150) that is not hollow). Blazer teaches its foam filler rod (150) prevents subunits from moving into the center of the stranded subunits (para [0089]).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod (para [0090]), but Blazer does not specifically teach its foamed rod is made of the specific foam material as instantly claimed, i.e., a foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition, with the specific density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer due to foaming, as instantly claimed.
In the present case, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making various rods or profiles that could carry loads as desired (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches the mechanical properties of its foam are variable and controllable, as Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]), which density reduction % falls within the instantly claimed range of from 5% to 70% reduction of instant claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05. Zerafati also teaches an advantage of PVDF foamed structure is their increased flexibility (para [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer foam with suitable density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer in view the teachings of Zerafati, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer, but does not specifically teach using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has the specific melt viscosity as instantly claimed.
As discussed above, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads. (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati further teaches the foam needs a high melt viscosity to produce a sized structure having a dense skin layer (para [0009]). Zerafati teaches using suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has melt viscosity of 4.0 to 55 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1 (para [0062], see step b) paragraph), which melt viscosity range overlaps with the instantly claimed melt viscosity range of 4 to 35 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified filler rod of Blazer, to select polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity in view the teachings of Zerafati, to provide a foamed filler rod having a dense skin layer as taught by Zerafati (para [0009] [0062]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer includes polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer, and polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer having a comonomer of greater than 51% by weight of vinylidene fluoride (para [0029]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range at least 70% by weight of vinylidene fluoride of claim 3, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 5% of by weight of vinylidene fluoride of claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati (i.e., such as those polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer, and polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer having a comonomer of at least 51% by weight of vinylidene fluoride, as discussed above), as taught by Zerafati as suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry desired loads (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 3 and 9. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4-5, as discussed above in rejection to claims 1 and 3, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches the suitable comonomer includes hexafluoropropylene (HFP), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) (para [0029]), meeting the claimed material limitations of claims 4-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati (i.e., such as those polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer having a comonomer of hexafluoropropylene (HFP) or tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), as discussed above), as taught by Zerafati as suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry desired loads (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 4-5. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-8, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Henry teaches its polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition may contain suitable additives including calcium tungstate (para [0034] [0035]), which is the same flame-retardant additive that increases the limiting oxygen index as that of the instant application, meeting the claimed limitations of claim 6 and 7. Zerafati teaches suitable amount of the additive is about 0.01 to 95 weight percent (para [0016]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 0.1 wt% of instant claim 8. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati as suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry desired loads (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in in claims 6-8. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]), which density reduction % falls within the instantly claimed range of from 15% to 60% reduction of instant claim 10. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer foam with suitable density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer in view the teachings of Zerafati, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above in rejection to claims 1 and 3, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati) using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity (as taught by Zerafati). In such modified the filler rod of Henry, the outside surface of the filler rod is not foamed, because Zerafati teaches high melt viscosity produces a sized structure having a dense skin layer (i.e., not foamed) (para [0009] [0062]).
Regarding claims 13-14, as discussed above in rejection to claims 1 and 3, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches its polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition may further comprise filler and additives (para [0035]), meeting the claimed limitations of claim 13. Henry teaches its polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition may further contain fire retardant additive/flame-retardant additive (para [0034]), meeting the claimed limitations of claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 13-14. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 24, Blazer does not teach or require its filler rod must include an outer skin layer, and is thus considered meeting the claimed limitations, i.e., without an outer skin layer.
Regarding independent claim 25, Blazer teaches an optical fiber filler rod (150, Fig. 6, para [0090] [0002]) includes a foamed filler rod of foamed material (para [0090], the filler rod 150 is a foamed filler rod) and a strength member (116, Fig. 6), wherein the filler rod (150) is not hollow (see Fig. 6, para [0090], Blazer teaches a cable with the inclusion of a support structure of a foam filler rod (150) that is not hollow). Blazer teaches its foam filler rod (150) prevents subunits from moving into the center of the stranded subunits (para [0089]). Blazer does not teach or require its filler rod (150) must include an outer skin layer, and is thus considered meeting the claimed limitations, i.e., without an outer skin layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod, but Blazer does not specifically teach its foamed rod is made of the specific foam material as instantly claimed, i.e., a foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition.
In the same field of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride article, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer, but does not specifically teach using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has the specific melt viscosity as instantly claimed.
Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati further teaches the foam needs a high melt viscosity to produce a sized structure having a dense skin layer (para [0009]). Zerafati teaches using suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has melt viscosity of 4.0 to 55 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1 (para [0062], see step b) paragraph), which melt viscosity range overlaps with the instantly claimed melt viscosity range of 4 to 35 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified filler rod of Blazer, to select polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity in view the teachings of Zerafati, to provide a foamed filler rod having a dense skin layer as taught by Zerafati (para [0009] [0062]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that is the same as instantly claimed. Further, in this regard, it is expected that the modified filler rod of Blazer (as discussed above) would possess the same or similar properties as instantly claimed filler rod such as meets the NFPA 262 rating (as instantly claimed in claim 25), because the composition of modified filler rod of Blazer and the instantly claimed filler rod are identical or substantially identical in composition (i.e., of the same or similar polyvinylidene fluoride polymer having the overlapping melt viscosity). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer in view of Henry and Zerafati as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of WO2019/050915 to Zerafati et al. (“Zerafati ‘915”).
The limitations of claims 1 and 3 are taught by Blazer in view of Zerafati as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati) using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity (as taught by Zerafati). However, modified Blazer does not specifically teach the inclusion of expanded microspheres.
In the same field of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride, Zerafati ‘915 teaches a low density fluoropolymer foam (page 4, first and second para), and teaches forming a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) foam with addition of expanded microspheres provides processing advantages that there is less gas/polymer interaction and thus concerns about the reduction of melt strength is reduced (page 8, last two para), and provides low density fluoropolymer foam (page 4, first and second para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified filler rod of Blazer, to include expanded microspheres in the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati ‘915, for the benefit of processing advantages as taught by Zerafati ‘915that there is less gas/polymer interaction and thus concerns about the reduction of melt strength is reduced (page 8, last two para), and provides low density fluoropolymer foam as taught by Zerafati ‘915 (page 4, first and second para), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached on 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782