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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on August 6, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled. New Claim 18 has been added. As such, Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, and 14-18 are currently pending in the application, with Claim 12 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2019/212051 to Aramaki et al. (an English translation obtained from Espacenet is referred to in this Action) (“Aramaki”) in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2018/110293 to Sasaki et al. (the English equivalent, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0389174, is referred to in this Action) (“Sasaki”) and Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2015-196332 to Nakamura (an English translation obtained from Espacenet is referred to in this Action) (“Nakamura”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 4, Aramaki discloses a thermal conductor having heat transfer properties comprising a thermally conductive ceramic sheet and resin coating layers formed on both surfaces of the thermally conductive ceramic sheet. See, e.g., Abstract, Figure 2C, entire document. Figure 2C of Aramaki, reproduced below, illustrates the resin coating layer 3 completely surrounding the thermally conductive member 2, thus covering both of its surfaces and all of its end faces:
PNG
media_image1.png
122
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The thermal conductor of Aramaki is useful for dissipating heat in various electronic devices, such as computers and smartphones. Page 1. Aramaki discloses that the resin layer includes fibrous filler, pages 7-8, which satisfies the limitation of a reinforcing fiber. Aramaki teaches that the length of the fiber used in the resin can be as low as 5 microns, page 8, which qualifies the fiber as discontinuous in its length. Aramaki does not disclose that the resin layer comprising the reinforcing fiber is a porous structure consisting of the fiber-reinforced resin obtained by impregnating discontinuous fibers with the resin and expanding the resin by spring back of the discontinuous fibers. Nonetheless, such a feature is known in the related art. Sasaki is also related to composite materials that are useful in electronic devices, such as phones and computers. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] and [0002], entire document. Sasaki teaches that a porous structure can be obtained using a fiber-reinforced resin layer that is provided with lower weight and greater stiffness by heating a precursor comprising discontinuous fibers and a thermoplastic resin, pressurizing the heated precursor, and releasing the pressure to induce spring back of the discontinuous fibers to provide the porous structure material. Paragraph [0094]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing invention to provide a porous structure consisting of a discontinuous fiber-reinforced resin in Aramaki by expanding the resin of Aramaki using spring back of the discontinuous fibers provided therein in order to provide a composite material with lower weight and greater stiffness so that the composite is more suitable for use in portable devices, as shown to be known in the art by Sasaki.
With regard to the thermal conductivity, Aramaki teaches that the sheet has conductivity of 20 W/m*K or more and does not limit the upper end of the range. Page 4. Nonetheless, using conductive members having a thermal conductivity greater than 300 W/m*K is well known in the art. Nakamura is also related to a laminate structure used to dissipate heat in electronic devices, such as mobile telephones or tablets. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] and [0002], entire document. Nakamura generally teaches that it is well understood that in-plane conductivity of thermally conductive sheets can be provided at 300 W/m*K or more, up to about 2000 W/m*K. Paragraph [0012]; see also Examples. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to increase the thermal conductivity of the sheet in the thermal conductor disclosed by Aramaki in an amount that is greater than 300 W/m*K in order to provide high-end performance for the dissipation of heat, as shown to be well known in the art by Nakamura. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
The combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura does not specifically disclose that the discontinuous fibers form a three-dimensional network and are bonded to each other with a resin at their intersections. However, whether the discontinuous fibers were connected with one another is determinable by the size and volume of the fibers in the resin, along with the processing conditions of configuring the discontinuous fibers to spring back and form the porous structure of the resin. The teachings of Aramaki, along with Sasaki, render this an inherent feature and/or an obvious modification. Aramaki teaches that the length of the fiber can be as high as 10 mm and the volume of fibrous filler in the resin can be as high as 70%. Page 8. Aramaki further teaches that the mass ratio of the fibrous filler to binder resin can be as high as 1.30. Id. It is the Office’s position that fiber volume at the upper end of the range disclosed by Aramaki and a greater amount of fiber mass compared to resin mass would inherently limit the amount of space within the composite material for the fiber to spread apart and therefore induce the formation of overlapping points among the fibers that are bonded by the resin. Moreover, the processing steps disclosed by Sasaki of providing spring back of the discontinuous fibers would result in the discontinuous fibers having cross-over points within the porous resin. Support for the presumption of inherency based upon the combination of references is further found because Applicant’s Specification indicates that the three-dimensional network of discontinuous fibers is provided when the mass proportion of fibers at around 40% to 60%, by weight, and Aramaki teaches that the mass proportion of fibers can actually be higher than this amount, indicating that formation of three-dimensional network would be more likely within the teachings of Aramaki. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
The combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura does not disclose property flexural rigidity being 0.3 N*m or more per unit width. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that these properties are inherent to the combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura. Support for the presumption is found because the combination of references renders obvious each of the claimed structural limitations of a porous structure having reinforcing discontinuous fibers and a resin, wherein the porous structure is obtained by expanding resin via spring back of the discontinuous fibers, a thermally conductive member in sheet form, and wherein the thermally conductive member is contained within the porous structure on all surfaces and end faces, and because the end use product functions similarly as a thermal conductor for electronic devices. Moreover, Sasaki establishes improved rigidity with the spring back step to create the porous structure, disclosing that “it is possible to realize weight reduction and high stiffness of the integrally molded body” using the spring-back processing of the discontinuous fibers. Paragraph [0094]. The burden has been placed upon the Applicant to show otherwise. “[I]nherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis where the limitation at issue is the natural result of the combination of prior art elements.” Persion Pharmaceuticals. V. Alvogen Malta Oper., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
With regard to Claim 5, Aramaki illustrates that the thermally conductive member is formed into a laminated structure. Figure 7. Additionally, Aramaki discloses that the thermally conductive sheet can be arranged into a plurality of adjacent thermally conductive sheets to provide flexibility. Figure 8 and page 13. With regard to Claims 7 and 10, Aramaki does not disclose property values related to flexural modulus or specific gravity. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that these properties are inherent to the combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura. Support for the presumption is found because the combination of references renders obvious each of the claimed structural limitations of a porous structure having reinforcing discontinuous fibers and a resin, wherein the porous structure is obtained by expanding resin via spring back of the discontinuous fibers, a thermally conductive member in sheet form, and wherein the thermally conductive member is contained within the porous structure on all surfaces and end faces, and because the end use product functions similarly as a thermal conductor for electronic devices. The burden has been placed upon the Applicant to show otherwise. With regard to Claim 9, Aramaki discloses a coating thickness of about 5 microns and a ceramic sheet thickness of up to 500 microns. Page 11. 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 (CCPA 1976). With regard to Claim 11, Aramaki discloses that the thermal conductor can be included in a housing. Page 2. With regard to Claim 14, Aramaki does not require that an adhesive be interposed between the thermally conductive member 2 and the resin coating 3 of Figure 2C. With regard to Claim 16, Aramaki discloses that mass ratio of fiber filler to binder ratio is a result effective variable that affects the flexibility of the resin coating. Page 8. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a resin coverage ratio of 30% or more by increasing the relative amount of resin compared to the fiber filler in order to provide additional flexibility, since Aramaki teaches that relative amounts are known result effective variable, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980). With regard to Claim 17, although the combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura does not disclose property of pore size in the resin, it is reasonable to presume that the material taught by the combination of references would inherently possess an average pore size that is less than 200 microns. Support for the presumption is found because the combination of references discloses using similar materials, i.e., a combination of discontinuous fibers in a resin, similar processes, i.e., heating and compressing the precursor of discontinuous fibers and thermoplastic resin, then releasing the pressure to induce spring back of the discontinuous fibers in order to form the pores in the resin. With regard to Claim 18, Aramaki discloses that the thermally conductive member is in a sheet form. Page 3. Additionally, Nakamura firmly establishes that the thermally conductive member is in the form of a sheet. Paragraph [0012]. Although neither reference mentions that such sheets are created via a heat-press, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” M.P.E.P. 2113. In this instance, there are no structural features that would be distinct by the recitation of a heat-pressing process in the claims to the sheet of material, as the material of the prior art satisfies the necessary structural limitations of being in a sheet form and possessing the claimed thermal conductivity. The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claims 5 and 15 (Claim 5 as an alternate grounds) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramaki in view of Sasaki and Nakamura as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0244875 to Ito et al. (“Ito”).
With regard to Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura does not disclose thermally conductive sheets that are in direct contact with each other. Ito is also related the thermally conductive sheets for use in electronic devices that dissipate heat. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0002] and [0003], entire document. Ito teaches that a plurality of conductive sheets can be stacked to provide heat dissipation in the thickness direction of the composite material. Paragraph [0148]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a stacked configuration of a plurality of conductive sheet members in the composite material taught by the combination of Aramaki with Sasaki and Nakamura in order to provide improved heat dissipation in the thickness direction of the conductive sheet, as shown to be known by Ito.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,270,611 (“the ‘611 Patent”) in view of Sasaki.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘611 Patent also recites a core member that comprises a porous body formed from a fiber-reinforced resin and a conductive member having an in-plan thermal conductivity of 300 W/m*K or more, wherein the core member covers both surfaces and all end faces of the thermally conductive member. Although the ‘611 Patent does not recite creating the pores in the resin using spring back of the discontinuous fibers, such a feature is an obvious modification in light of the teachings of Sasaki, which provide that such a modification can increase lightweight and stiffness features. The dependent claims of the ‘611 Patent also recite overlapping properties, such as flexural modulus, rigidity, and thickness that are similar to the present application.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 14-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 17/773,114 (“the ‘114 Application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘114 Application also recites a core member that comprises a porous body formed from a fiber-reinforced resin (claims 1 and 7) and a conductive member having an in-plan thermal conductivity of 300 W/m*K or more (claim 1), wherein the core member covers both surfaces and all end faces of the thermally conductive member. The dependent claims of the ‘114 Application also recite overlapping properties, such as flexural modulus, rigidity, and thickness that are similar to the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the thermal conductor of the present invention is characterized in that the porous structure is a plastic reinforced with discontinuous fibers and the material of the porous structure is a structure in which the discontinuous fibers are impregnated with a resin and expanded by the spring back of the discontinuous fibers so that the discontinuous fibers form a three-dimensional network. However, Sasaki already teaches this concept, disclosing that “[a]fter heating the molded body containing the discontinuous fibers and the thermoplastic resin constituting the core layer 11 at a temperature higher than the softening point or melting point of the thermoplastic resin and pressurizing it, the pressurization is released, and by expanding it by the restoring force to return to the original style when the residual stress of the discontinuous fibers is released, so-called spring back, a desired space can be formed in the core layer 11. By this, it is possible to realize weight reduction and high stiffness of the integrally molded body 1.” Paragraph [0094].
Applicant argues that the present invention is lightweight by using the porous structure, and has an excellent bending rigidity because the porous structure coverall all surfaces of the thermally conductive member. However, Aramaki already teaches the concept of a resin impregnated with discontinuous fibers used to cover all of the surfaces of a thermally conductive member. Figure 2C. Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., degree of being lightweight) 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).
Applicant argues that Example 1 of the present invention achieves a bending rigidity of 0.3 N*m or higher by covering all end faces whereas Comparative Example 4 obtains a bending rigidity of 0.21 N*m does not. However, it is noted that if the Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show non-obviousness, the Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. In this instance, Comparative Example 4 is not commensurate in scope with the applied prior art because Amaraki teaches that all of the surfaces and end faces of a thermally conductive member are covered with the resin containing discontinuous fibers. Figure 2C.
Applicant argues that the thermally conductive member of the present invention has a structure in which discontinuous fibers form a three-dimensional network and are bonded by resin at their intersections. However, whether the discontinuous fibers were connected with one another is determinable by the size and volume of the fibers in the resin, along with the processing conditions of configuring the discontinuous fibers to spring back and form the porous structure of the resin. The teachings of Aramaki, along with Sasaki, render this an inherent feature and/or an obvious modification. Aramaki teaches that the length of the fiber can be as high as 10 mm and the volume of fibrous filler in the resin can be as high as 70%. Page 8. Aramaki further teaches that the mass ratio of the fibrous filler to binder resin can be as high as 1.30. Id. It is the Office’s position that fiber volume at the upper end of the range disclosed by Aramaki and a greater amount of fiber mass compared to resin mass would inherently limit the amount of space within the composite material for the fiber to spread apart and therefore induce the formation of overlapping points among the fibers that are bonded by the resin. Moreover, the processing steps disclosed by Sasaki of providing spring back of the discontinuous fibers would result in the discontinuous fibers having cross-over points within the porous resin.
Applicant argues that a characteristic feature of the present invention is the porous structure on the upper and lower surfaces of the thermally conductive member is compressed, and the porosity becomes relatively small, thereby suppressing the decrease in thermal conductivity due to the porous structure and maintaining the heat dissipation property. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the degree of porosity at the upper and lower surfaces, the amount of heat dissipation) 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).
Applicant argues that Aramaki relates to a heat conductor, and the concept of providing insulation material on all surfaces is inconceivable. The Examiner disagrees. First, Applicant’s claims require the presence of a thermally conductive member. As such, Aramaki’s disclosure of a heat conductor is not precluded by the present claims. Second, Aramaki discloses that its resin coating, in fact, covers all surfaces of the thermally conductive member. Figure 2C.
Applicant argues that the person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any insulating material in Aramaki would only be provided on portions in contact with the device outer casing. The Examiner disagrees. Figure 2C of Aramaki illustrates the resin coating layer 3 completely surrounding the thermally conductive member 2, thus covering both of its surfaces and all of its end faces.
Applicant argues that the person having ordinary skill in the art would not combine Aramaki with Sasaki because it would go against the desire of Aramaki to maintain shape while suppressing the decrease in thermal conductivity. The Examiner disagrees. Sasaki teaches that a porous structure provides lower weight to the end product. Given the perpetual desire to lower the weight requirements of electronic products, the person having ordinary skill in the art is provided with sufficient reasoning to utilize the processing conditions of Sasaki with Aramaki, even if it is at the expense of some other properties, so long as the device is still able to function in the same field, which Sasaki teaches that such materials still perform in the field of personal computers and mobile phones.
Applicant argues that the resin coating layer of Amaraki is a heat insulating material that prevents heat from reaching the surface of the device. The Examiner disagrees. Amaraki is neither limited to the resin coating layer being heat insulating or heat conducting. For example, Amaraki discloses the resin coating layer can have insulating characteristics, page 4, but also discloses that the resin coating layer can include thermally conductive fillers. Page 6. As such, Amaraki is not limited in the manner argued by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that Nakamura merely discloses a porous structure obtained by expanding resin through the spring back action of discontinuous fibers but without a thermally conductive member. 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 this instance, Amaraki discloses the thermally conductive member surrounded by a resin containing discontinuous fibers.
Applicant argues that the Examiner does not meet a high standard of establishing inherency, and that U.S. case law holds that an unrecognized property that may be inherent to a single reference cannot be properly applied to a combination of references. The Examiner disagrees. First, the PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his or her claimed product, whether the rejection is based on inherency, on prima facie obviousness, jointly or alternatively. M.P.E.P. 2112(V). Second, “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis where the limitation at issue is the natural result of the combination of prior art elements.” Persion Pharmaceuticals. V. Alvogen Malta Oper., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Applicant argues that the ceramic thermal conductor of Aramaki in Example 1 at a thickness of 50 microns has a maximum bending rigidity of at most 0.006 N*m. However, the rejection is based upon modification of Aramaki with a thermally conductive material having an in-plane conductivity of 300 W/m*K, as disclosed by Nakamura, which teaches that the thermally conductive materials are formed using metals such as aluminum, copper, tungsten, and carbon, paragraph [0020], which, when used in the composite material of Aramaki, would provide a much higher bending rigidity than the ceramic material exemplified.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 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 JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789