DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of October 16, 2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1, 8-12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are amended and claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
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 Objections
Claims 8 and 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, at the end of line 6, “and/or” should be inserted.
Regarding claim 10, in line 13, the word “and” after lubricant should be deleted; and in line 19, the word “and” should be inserted before the last wherein clause.
Regarding claim 14, in line 13, the word “and” after lubricant should be deleted.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15-20, these claims depend from an objected to claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also subject to the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100700683 (“KR 683”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0313870), Wang et al. (US 2017/0362731), and Niessner et al. (WO 2018/145970). The citations below for KR 683 are taken from an English language machine translation included previously.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 9, KR 683 teaches a composition comprising 25 to 45 parts by weight of a graft copolymer formed by graft polymerization of a vinyl cyanide compound and an aromatic vinyl compound on a butadiene polymer (backbone) (Page 3, lines 5-6 and 21-22), and 55 to 75 parts by weight of a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer containing 15 to 40 parts by weight of acrylonitrile and 60 to 85 parts by weight of styrene, and having a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 500,000 g/mol (Page 4, lines 9 and 23-26). The graft copolymer contains 30 to 60 parts by weight of a monomer mixture of the vinyl cyanide compound and the aromatic vinyl compound in the presence of 40 to 70 parts by weight of the butadiene rubbery polymer (Page 3, lines 27-30). Moreover, the vinyl cyanide compound can be acrylonitrile and the aromatic vinyl compound can be styrene (Page 3, lines 21-25). This composition undergoes electroless plating (Page 6, line 29). Additionally, KR 683 teaches that the composition may further include various antioxidants, lubricants, light stabilizers, fillers, inorganic additives, pigments, or dyes, which have conventionally been used in ABS resin compositions (Page 5, lines 11-13).
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises 0.1 to 10 weight percent of a core/shell diene-based rubber having a particle size of 100 to 500 nm. However, Kim et al. teaches a resin composition which is suitable for plating that contains an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene graft copolymer and from 5 to 20% by weight of a copolymer prepared by polymerizing a conjugated diene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 microns, an aromatic vinyl compound, and a (meth)acrylate compound (¶15). Specifically, the copolymer prepared by polymerizing a conjugated diene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 microns (100 to 300 nm), an aromatic vinyl compound, and a (meth)acrylate compound is a copolymer prepared by polymerizing 70% by weight of a butadiene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.2 μm, as an ingredient of a core, and 20% by weight of acrylate and 10% by weight of styrene (¶56), wherein the acrylate may be methyl methacrylate (¶36). KR 683 and Kim et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 5 to 20% by weight of this core/shell copolymer, as taught by Kim et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide superior plating adhesion to the composition (¶34-35).
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 5 weight percent of one or more of a stabilizer and/or an antioxidant. However, Wang et al. teaches a composition used for metal plating comprising an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin (¶6), from 0.01 to 5% by weight of a phosphorous containing heat stabilizer (¶47), and from 0.01 to 0.1 parts by weight of an antioxidant (¶50). KR 683 and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 0.01 to 5% by weight of a phosphorous containing heat stabilizer and 0.01 to 0.1 parts by weight of an antioxidant, as taught by Wang et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to stabilize the composition from heat and to reduce oxidation of the composition.
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 2 weight percent of a fatty acid or a fatty acid salt. However, Niessner et al. teaches an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene copolymer composition comprising from 1 to 10 parts by weight of an additive such stearic acid (contains 18 carbon atoms) as a lubricant (Page 12, line 28 to Page 13, line 25). KR 683 and Niessner et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 1 to 10 parts by weight of an additive such stearic acid as a lubricant, as taught by Niessner et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the processibility of the composition as it moves through the molding process.
KR 683 does not require the presence of a mold release agent, a metal oxide, a lubricant, a polycarbonate, or a filler, which are optional components in the claims since they can be present in 0 parts by weight/weight percent.
Regarding claim 8, KR 683 does not teach that the composition is characterized by one or more of the following: a melt flow rate of 10 to 40 g/10 minutes at 10 kg and 220° C, an Izod impact of 20 to 50 KJ/m2, a tensile modulus of 2000 to 4000 MPa, an elongation at break of 10-200%, or a coefficient of thermal expansion of from 70 to 90 (µm/m)/°C. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effects or physical properties outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a melt flow rate of 10 to 40 g/10 minutes at 10 kg and 220° C, an Izod impact of 20 to 50 KJ/m2, a tensile modulus of 2000 to 4000 MPa, an elongation at break of 10-200%, or a coefficient of thermal expansion of from 70 to 90 (µm/m)/°C, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claims 10-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100700683 (“KR 683”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0313870), Wang et al. (US 2017/0362731), and Niessner et al. (WO 2018/145970). The citations below for KR 683 are taken from an English language machine translation included previously.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, KR 683 teaches a composition comprising 25 to 45 parts by weight of a graft copolymer formed by graft polymerization of a vinyl cyanide compound and an aromatic vinyl compound on a butadiene polymer (backbone) (Page 3, lines 5-6 and 21-22), and 55 to 75 parts by weight of a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer containing 15 to 40 parts by weight of acrylonitrile and 60 to 85 parts by weight of styrene, and having a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 500,000 g/mol (Page 4, lines 9 and 23-26). The graft copolymer contains 30 to 60 parts by weight of a monomer mixture of the vinyl cyanide compound and the aromatic vinyl compound in the presence of 40 to 70 parts by weight of the butadiene rubbery polymer (Page 3, lines 27-30). Moreover, the vinyl cyanide compound can be acrylonitrile and the aromatic vinyl compound can be styrene (Page 3, lines 21-25). This composition is shaped into an article and undergoes electroless plating (Page 6, lines 17-29). Additionally, KR 683 teaches that the composition may further include various antioxidants, lubricants, light stabilizers, fillers, inorganic additives, pigments, or dyes, which have conventionally been used in ABS resin compositions (Page 5, lines 11-13).
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises 0.1 to 5 weight percent of a core/shell diene-based rubber having a particle size of 100 to 500 nm. However, Kim et al. teaches a resin composition which is suitable for plating that contains an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene graft copolymer and from 5 to 20% by weight of a copolymer prepared by polymerizing a conjugated diene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 microns, an aromatic vinyl compound, and a (meth)acrylate compound (¶15). Specifically, the copolymer prepared by polymerizing a conjugated diene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 microns (100 to 300 nm), an aromatic vinyl compound, and a (meth)acrylate compound is a copolymer prepared by polymerizing 70% by weight of a butadiene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.2 μm, as an ingredient of a core, and 20% by weight of acrylate and 10% by weight of styrene (¶56), wherein the acrylate may be methyl methacrylate (¶36). KR 683 and Kim et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 5 to 20% by weight of this core/shell copolymer, as taught by Kim et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide superior plating adhesion to the composition (¶34-35).
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 5 weight percent of one or more of a stabilizer and/or an antioxidant. However, Wang et al. teaches a composition used for metal plating comprising an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin (¶6), from 0.01 to 5% by weight of a phosphorous containing heat stabilizer (¶47), and from 0.01 to 0.1 parts by weight of an antioxidant (¶50). KR 683 and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 0.01 to 5% by weight of a phosphorous containing heat stabilizer and 0.01 to 0.1 parts by weight of an antioxidant, as taught by Wang et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to stabilize the composition from heat and to reduce oxidation of the composition.
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 2 weight percent of a fatty acid or a fatty acid salt. However, Niessner et al. teaches an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene copolymer composition comprising from 1 to 10 parts by weight of an additive such stearic acid (contains 18 carbon atoms) as a lubricant (Page 12, line 28 to Page 13, line 25). KR 683 and Niessner et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 1 to 10 parts by weight of an additive such stearic acid as a lubricant, as taught by Niessner et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the processibility of the composition as it moves through the molding process.
KR 683 does not require the presence of a mold release agent, a metal oxide, a lubricant, a polycarbonate, or a filler, which are optional components in the claims since they can be present in 0 parts by weight/weight percent.
Regarding claim 11, KR 683 does not teach that the plated article has a metal layer peel strength of 1401 to 3502 N/m. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effects or physical properties outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a metal layer peel strength of 1401 to 3502 N/m, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 12, KR 683 teaches that the article contains metal coatings of copper, nickel and chromium (Page 6, line 30). KR 683 does not teach the order in which these metals are plated on the article. However, changes of the sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 IV C. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to first make a nickel layer and then a chromium layer on the shaped article, and would have been motivated to do so by the desired end of use of the article.
Regarding claim 13, KR 683 teaches that the article can be used for an automotive part (Page 1, line 26).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, KR 683 does not teach that the article survives more than 6 cycles of being placed in a -40° C environment for an hour and then being placed in a 93° C environment for an one hour with no more than 2 minutes between the environments with no visible delamination bubbles, cracking or defect of the metal coating. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effects or physical properties outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., that the article survives more than 6 cycles of being placed in a -40° C environment for an hour and then being placed in a 93° C environment for an one hour with no more than 2 minutes between the environments with no visible delamination bubbles, cracking or defect of the metal coating, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 18, KR 683 teaches that the shape is formed by injection molding (Page 6, line 17).
Claims 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100700683 (“KR 683”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0313870), Wang et al. (US 2017/0362731), and Niessner et al. (WO 2018/145970). The citations below for KR 683 are taken from an English language machine translation included previously.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, KR 683 teaches a composition comprising 25 to 45 parts by weight of a graft copolymer formed by graft polymerization of a vinyl cyanide compound and an aromatic vinyl compound on a butadiene polymer (backbone) (Page 3, lines 5-6 and 21-22), and 55 to 75 parts by weight of a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer containing 15 to 40 parts by weight of acrylonitrile and 60 to 85 parts by weight of styrene, and having a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 500,000 g/mol (Page 4, lines 9 and 23-26). The graft copolymer contains 30 to 60 parts by weight of a monomer mixture of the vinyl cyanide compound and the aromatic vinyl compound in the presence of 40 to 70 parts by weight of the butadiene rubbery polymer (Page 3, lines 27-30). Moreover, the vinyl cyanide compound can be acrylonitrile and the aromatic vinyl compound can be styrene (Page 3, lines 21-25). This composition is shaped into an article, is treated with chromic anhydride-sulfuric acid as an etchant to oxidize the butadiene rubber, and then performing electroless plating (Page 6, lines 17-29). Additionally, KR 683 teaches that the composition may further include various antioxidants, lubricants, light stabilizers, fillers, inorganic additives, pigments, or dyes, which have conventionally been used in ABS resin compositions (Page 5, lines 11-13).
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises 0.1 to 10 weight percent of a core/shell diene-based rubber having a particle size of 100 to 500 nm. However, Kim et al. teaches a resin composition which is suitable for plating that contains an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene graft copolymer and from 5 to 20% by weight of a copolymer prepared by polymerizing a conjugated diene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 microns, an aromatic vinyl compound, and a (meth)acrylate compound (¶15). Specifically, the copolymer prepared by polymerizing a conjugated diene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 microns (100 to 300 nm), an aromatic vinyl compound, and a (meth)acrylate compound is a copolymer prepared by polymerizing 70% by weight of a butadiene rubber having an average particle diameter of 0.2 μm, as an ingredient of a core, and 20% by weight of acrylate and 10% by weight of styrene (¶56), wherein the acrylate may be methyl methacrylate (¶36). KR 683 and Kim et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 5 to 20% by weight of this core/shell copolymer, as taught by Kim et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide superior plating adhesion to the composition (¶34-35).
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 5 weight percent of one or more of a stabilizer and/or an antioxidant. However, Wang et al. teaches a composition used for metal plating comprising an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin (¶6), from 0.01 to 5% by weight of a phosphorous containing heat stabilizer (¶47), and from 0.01 to 0.1 parts by weight of an antioxidant (¶50). KR 683 and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 0.01 to 5% by weight of a phosphorous containing heat stabilizer and 0.01 to 0.1 parts by weight of an antioxidant, as taught by Wang et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to stabilize the composition from heat and to reduce oxidation of the composition.
KR 683 does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 2 weight percent of a fatty acid or a fatty acid salt. However, Niessner et al. teaches an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene copolymer composition comprising from 1 to 10 parts by weight of an additive such stearic acid (contains 18 carbon atoms) as a lubricant (Page 12, line 28 to Page 13, line 25). KR 683 and Niessner et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 1 to 10 parts by weight of an additive such stearic acid as a lubricant, as taught by Niessner et al., to the composition, as taught by KR 683, and would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the processibility of the composition as it moves through the molding process.
KR 683 does not require the presence of a mold release agent, a metal oxide, a lubricant, a polycarbonate, or a filler, which are optional components in the claims since they can be present in 0 parts by weight/weight percent.
Regarding claim 15, KR 683 teaches that the shape is formed by injection molding (Page 6, line 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of record is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction because the Office uses three different references to teach the inclusion of the missing limitations, selects only those components from those references while ignoring the context in which they are taught and the different context of KR 683, and argues that it would be obvious to add those components to KR 683. Applicant specifically argues that the secondary reference of Kim et al. requires at least 35% of polycarbonate, Wang et al. also requires a high amount of polycarbonate as well as at least 10,000 ppm of filler, and Neissner et al. is not focused on electroless plating. These arguments of applicant are unpersuasive.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, each additional reference provides a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the specific component in the specific amount to the composition taught by KR 683. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the Office has not taken into consideration the compositions of the secondary references as a whole and essentially “cherry-picked” the components claimed by applicant, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, as stated above, each reference provides a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the specific component in the specific amount to the composition taught by KR 683. The whole of the compositions does not need to be combined. This argument is unpersuasive.
Lastly, in response to applicant's argument that Kim et al., Wang et al., and Neissner et al. are non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as stated in the rejection of record, Kim et al. and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles that are metal plated; and Niessner et al. is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin compositions used for shaped articles. It is not necessary that Niessner et al. be concerned with electroplating; and it is not necessary that the compositions of Kim et al. and Wang et al. use additional polymers than that of KR 683. The references being related to compositions used for shaped articles comprising the same polymers as one of the base polymers is enough to qualify these references as analogous art. This argument is unpersuasive.
In summary, the rejection of record is not based on hindsight reconstruction because there is motivation provided in the prior art for why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the composition of KR 683 as proposed by the Office; the references used in the rejection of record are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention; and it is not necessary for the whole of the compositions of the secondary references to be bodily incorporated into the composition of the primary reference. Additionally, applicant has provided no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not make the modifications proposed by the Office in the rejection of record. Therefore, all the proposed arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights