DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed by Applicant on March 4, 2026 has been fully considered. The amendment to instant claim 16 is acknowledged. Specifically, claim 16 has been amended to include the limitations of a vulcanization system comprising between 3 and 7 phr of sulfur and from 3.1 to 10 phr of a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator. These limitations were not previously presented and were taken from instant specification. In light of the amendment, all previous rejections are withdrawn. The new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
3. Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stabblefield et al (WO 2017/117399) in view of Takizawa (US 2010/0324168) and Hergenrother et al (US 2003/0127169).
4. As to instant claims 28-30, Stabblefield et al discloses articles, including tires and specifically run-flat tires having sidewall supports formed from a rubber composition comprising ([0045]):
A) 20-80 phr, or 30-50 phr ([0029]) of a functionalized polybutadiene rubber, such as a tin-coupled amine end-functionalized polybutadiene having cis 1,4-content of 35%, commercially available as NIPOL BR 1250H ([0019], [0052]);
B) a second rubber such as styrene-butadiene copolymer, natural rubber, another polybutadiene or other diene rubber or combinations thereof (Abstract; [0027]);
C) 50-80 phr or 55-65 phr ([0040]; [0006]) of carbon black having specific surface area of 15-25 m2/g and COAN of 65-85 ml/100 g (Abstract, [0034], [0036]), specifically S204 from Orion Engineering Carbon ([0053]);
D) curing system comprising accelerators and sulfur ([0054]; [0041]).
5. It is noted that the commercial product NIPOL BR 1250H and the commercial carbon black S204 are cited as being used in instant invention (see p. 7, lines 25-27 and p. 9, lines 10-12 of instant specification).
6. Though Stabblefield et al does not explicitly recite the accelerator of component D) being sulfenamide, the relative amounts and a weight ratio of the sulfur and the sulfenamide,
1) Takizawa discloses a rubber composition for tires comprising:
a) 100 pbw a natural rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber ([0009], [0013], [0015]);
b) carbon black ([0021]);
c) 1-3 pbw of sulfur and
d) 1.5-4.0 pbw of a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator ([0009], [0024]),
specifically exemplified compositions comprise 2 pbw of sulfenamide accelerator per 1.43 pbw of sulfur (Table 1), i.e. the weight ratio of sulfur to sulfenamide is less than 1 (as to instant claims 16, 28-30),
wherein such compositions show improved grip performance, blow out resistance and wear resistance (Table 1, [0003]).
Thus, Takizawa teaches i) the sulfur being used in amount of 3 phr; ii) sulfenamide – in amount of 4 phr and iii) explicitly teaches/exemplifies the compositions with the weight ratio of sulfur to sulfenamide of less than 1; therefore, based on the teachings of Takizawa, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and sulfur in amount of 3 phr, sulfenamide – in amount of 4 phr, so that the weight ratio of sulfur to sulfenamide is 3:4, i.e. less than 1, as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
It is further noted that though Takizawa does not exemplify the use of sulfur in amount of 3 phr and sulfenamide – in amount of 4 phr, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
2) Hergenrother et al discloses a rubber composition for tires comprising:
100 pbw of a rubber including polybutadiene and further 0-5 pbw, preferably 0.1-3 pbw ([0041]) of sulfur and 0.2-10 pbw, preferably 2-5 phr of an accelerator, specifically sulfenamide (Abstract, [0011], [0012], [0042]), wherein Hergenrother et al explicitly teaches that to increase crosslink stabilities, the amount of sulfur should be decreased and amount of sulfenamide should be increased ([0004]).
Based on the teachings of Hergenrother et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the amount of sulfur in a preferable amount of 3 phr, and further an increased amount of accelerator including sulfenamide in amount of as low as 3.1 phr or as high as 5 phr as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
7. Since both Stabblefield et al and Takizawa are related to tires made from rubber compositions comprising styrene-butadiene rubber and natural rubber, carbon black, and sulfur/vulcanization accelerator vulcanization systems, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Takizawa teaches the use of sulfenamide as the vulcanization accelerator, which sulfenamide is used in amount higher than the amount of sulfur to provide compositions with improved grip performance, blow out resistance and wear resistance, and further Hergenrother et al explicitly teaches that to increase crosslink stabilities, the amount of sulfur should be decreased and amount of sulfenamide should be increased, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takizawa, Hergenrother et al and Stabblefield et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the sulfenamide as the vulcanization accelerator component D) in the composition of Stabblefield et al in amount of 4 phr, choose and use sulfur in amount of 3 phr, so that the weight ratio of sulfur to sulfenamide is 3:4, i.e. less than 1, i.e. increased amount of sulfenamide accelerator, so to ensure the composition of Stabblefield et al has an improved grip performance, blow out resistance and wear resistance, as well, as increased crosslinking capabilities, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
8. Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stabblefield et al (WO 2017/117399) in view of Matsuo et al (WO 2019/054290).
It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO 2019/054290 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 2020/0207969 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 2020/0207969.
9. As to instant claims 28-30, Stabblefield et al discloses articles, including tires and specifically run-flat tires having sidewall supports formed from a rubber composition comprising ([0045]):
A) 20-80 phr, or 30-50 phr ([0029]) of a functionalized polybutadiene rubber, such as a tin-coupled amine end-functionalized polybutadiene having cis 1,4-content of 35%, commercially available as NIPOL BR 1250H ([0019], [0052]);
B) a second rubber such as styrene-butadiene copolymer, natural rubber, another polybutadiene or other diene rubber or combinations thereof (Abstract; [0027]);
C) 50-80 phr or 55-65 phr ([0040]; [0006]) of carbon black having specific surface area of 15-25 m2/g and COAN of 65-85 ml/100 g (Abstract, [0034], [0036]), specifically S204 from Orion Engineering Carbon ([0053]);
D) curing system comprising accelerators and sulfur ([0054]; [0041]).
10. It is noted that the commercial product NIPOL BR 1250H and the commercial carbon black S204 are cited as being used in instant invention (see p. 7, lines 25-27 and p. 9, lines 10-12 of instant specification).
11. Though Stabblefield et al does not explicitly recite the accelerator of component D) being sulfenamide, the relative amounts and a weight ratio of the sulfur and the sulfenamide,
Matsuo et al discloses a rubber composition for tires ([0006]) comprising:
A) 100 pbw of a mixture of polybutadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber ([0031]);
B) a filler including 10-120 phr of silica and 40 phr of carbon black having a BET specific area of 10-130 m2/g ([0058], [0061]);
C) 0.1-5 phr of sulfur ([0068]);
D) 0.1-10 phr, preferably 0.1-7 phr of sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator ([0045], [0042], [0178]),
Wherein the weight ratio of the sulfur to the vulcanization accelerator is 1/10 to 1/5 ([0071], [0072]).
Examples 1-5 of Table 1 show the weight ratio of sulfur to sulfenamide (CBS) of less than 1.
12. Since both Stabblefield et al and Matsuo et al are related to rubber compositions based on polybutadiene/styrene-butadiene rubber, carbon black and vulcanization system including sulfur and sulfenamide, used for making tires, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Matsuo et al discloses the use of the sulfur in amount of 0.1-5 phr and the use of the sulfenamide in amount of 0.1-10 phr, preferably 0.1-7 with the weight ratio of the sulfur to the vulcanization accelerator is 1/10 to 1/5, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stabblefield et al and Matsuo et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the vulcanization system comprising sulfur in amount of 0.1-5 phr and sulfenamide in amount of 0.1-10 phr, preferably 0.1-7phr, with the weight ratio of the sulfur to the vulcanization accelerator is 1/10 to 1/5 as the component D) in the composition of Stabblefield et al, since such curing system is used in rubber compositions for making tires, as shown by Matsuo et al, and it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
13. All ranges in the composition and tire of Stabblefield et al in view of Matsuo et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
14. Claims 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,944,777 in view of Stabblefield et al (WO 2017/117399) and Matsuo et al (WO 2019/054290, based on corresponding US 2020/0207969). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
15. US 9,944,777 claims a run-flat tire comprising a sidewall insert comprising a cross-linkable rubber composition comprising:
A) 50-80 phr of a first polybutadiene rubber;
B) a second polybutadiene rubber;
C) 30-80 phr of carbon black comprising a specific surface area 15-25 m2/g and an oil adsorption number COAN of 65-85 m2/g.
16. Though US 9,944,777 does not claim the composition comprising a vulcanization system comprising a 3-7 phr of sulfur, 3.1-10 phr of sulfenamide, with weight ratio between the sulfur and thesulfenamide, and the second polybutadiene being functionalized polybutadiene with cis 1,4- content of at most 50%,
1) Stabblefield et al discloses run-flat tires having sidewall supports formed from a rubber composition comprising ([0045]):
A) 20-80 phr, or 30-50 phr ([0029]) of a functionalized polybutadiene rubber, such as a tin-coupled amine end-functionalized polybutadiene having cis 1,4-content of 35%, commercially available as NIPOL BR 1250H ([0019], [0052]); further in combination with a second rubber component including polybutadiene ([0020]-[0023]);
B) 50-80 phr or 55-65 phr ([0040]; [0006]) of carbon black having specific surface area of 15-25 m2/g and COAN of 65-85 ml/100 g (Abstract, [0034], [0036]), specifically S204 from Orion Engineering Carbon ([0053]);
C) curing system comprising accelerators and sulfur ([0054]; [0041]).
2) Matsuo et al discloses a rubber composition for tires ([0006]) comprising:
A) 100 pbw of a mixture of polybutadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber ([0031]);
B) a filler including silica and 40 pbw of carbon black having a BET specific area of 10-130 m2/g ([0058], [0061]);
C) 0.1-5 phr of sulfur ([0068]);
D) 0.1-10 phr, preferably 0.1-7 phr of sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator ([0045], [0042], [0178]),
Wherein the weight ratio of the sulfur to the vulcanization accelerator is 1/10 to 1/5 ([0071], [0072]).
Examples 1-5 of Table 1 show the weight ratio of sulfur to sulfenamide (CBS) of less than 1.
17. Since US 9,944,777, Stabblefield et al and Matsuo et al are related to tires made from rubber compositions comprising a combination of polybutadiene rubbers, carbon black, and sulfur/vulcanization accelerator vulcanization system, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein i) Stabblefield et al discloses the use of functionalized polybutadiene having cis 1,4- content of 35% in combination with other polybutadiene rubbers, leading to improved cornering stiff with no impact on the rolling resistance of the tire ([0059]) and ii) Matsuo et al discloses the use of sulfur in amount of 0.1-5 phr and the use of sulfenamide in amount of 0.1-10 phr, preferably 0.1-7 with the weight ratio of the sulfur to the vulcanization accelerator is 1/10 to 1/5, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Matsuo et al, Stabblefield et al and US 9,944,777, and to use, or obvious to try to use vulcanization system comprising sulfur in amount of 0.1-5 phr and sulfenamide in amount of 0.1-10 phr, preferably 0.1-7phr, with the weight ratio of the sulfur to the vulcanization accelerator is 1/10 to 1/5 as the component D) in the composition of US 9,944,777, since such curing system is used in rubber compositions for making tires, as shown by Matsuo et al, and it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention, and to include, or obvious to try to include the functionalized polybutadiene having cis 1,4-content of 35% as the second elastomer in the composition of US 9,944,777 to further improve cornering stiff with no impact on the rolling resistance of the tire of US 9,944,777, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
18. Claims 28-30 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims
13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,944,777 in view of Stabblefield et al (WO 2017/117399) and Matsuo et al (WO 2019/054290, based on corresponding US 2020/0207969).
Specifically, see the discussion in paragraphs 14-17 above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of com-mon ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300). Commonly assigned US 9,944,777, discussed above, would form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) and the conflicting inventions were not commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue, the assignee can, under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(c), either show that the conflicting inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made, or name the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned case as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), or 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004.
19. Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over US Patent No. 9,944,777 in view of Stabblefield et al (WO 2017/117399) and Matsuo et al (WO 2019/054290, based on corresponding US 2020/0207969).
Specifically, see the discussion set forth in paragraphs 14-17 above.
The applied reference has a common assignee and a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention “by another”; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131; or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor named in the application is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2). U.S.C. 103(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(c), either show that the conflicting inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made, or name the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned case as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), or 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant's arguments filed on March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejections and discussion set forth above.
21. It is further noted that Takizawa (US 2010/0324168) is secondary reference, which was applied for the specific teachings. Secondary reference does not need to teach all limitations. “It is not necessary to be able to bodily incorporate the secondary reference into the primary reference in order to make the combination.” In re Nievelt, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights