DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 6-16, 18, and 20-23 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 08/26/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, and cancelled claims 18, 20, and 23 on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-2, 6-16, and 21-22 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 6-16, and 21-22 are rejected.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adolphs et al. (US 2016/0355962) (Adolphs) in view of Nonaka et al. (US 2014/0364554) (Nonaka), Hartman et al. (US 8,129,018) (Hartman), and Piret et al. (US 2014/0255631) (Piret).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-16, and 21
Applicant’s Specification states by optimizing the viscoelastic properties of a unidirectional composite, a unidirectional laminate may be produced with a modulus of at least 45 GPa at a fiber weight fraction greater than or equal to 50% and fatigue mechanical performance of at least 450 MPa at 1 MM cycles, measured according to ASTM E 739-931. Such viscoelastic properties include main relaxation temperatures and storage modulus drop. These viscoelastic properties are governed by the glass composition, glass fiber/matrix interface properties, resin type, and manufacturing process. If at least these viscoelastic properties are turned within specific ranges, high modulus (at least about 45 MPa) and fatigue performance are achieved in unidirectional laminates at a fiber volume fraction of at least 50% by volume. Paragraph [0047] and [0103-0105].
Applicant’s Specification further states the glass composition comprises about 55.0 to about 65.0% by weight SiO2, about 17.0 to about 27.0% by weight Al2O3, about 8.0 to about 15.0% by weight MgO, about 7.0 to about 12.0% by weight CaO, about 0.0 to about 1.0% by weight Na2O, 0 to about 2.0% by weight TiO2, 0 to about 2.0% by weight Fe2O3, and no more than 0.5% by weight Li2O. Advantageously, the ratio of the weight percent of alumina oxide and magnesium oxide (Al2O3/MgO) is no greater than 2.0, such as no greater than 1.9, and no greater than 1.8. Additionally, the ratio of the weight percent of magnesium oxide to calcium oxide (MgO/CaO) is advantageously at least 1.2. Paragraph [0053].
Applicant’s Specification further states the high-performance sizing composition may contain a boron-containing compound. The boron-containing compound releases boron atoms compound act with the aminosilane at the glass interface to assist in adhering the remaining sizing components to the glass fiber. Paragraph [0091].
Applicant’s Specification further states a polyurethane film former increases strand integrity and the mechanical fatigue performance by toughening the resin/size interphase. Paragraph [0094].
Applicant’s Specification further states the matrix resin is comprised of a resin selected from: polyester resins, vinylester resins, polyurethane resins, a bio-based resin, and a styrene-free resin. Paragraph [0101].
Applicant’s Specification further states the unidirectional laminate is obtained by vacuum infusion. Paragraph [0109].
Applicant’s Specification further states one way to tune the viscoelastic properties of the unidirectional laminate is to select a glass fiber that achieves an elastic modulus of at least about 85 GPa. The high modulus glass fiber may be of the type described in WO2019126252A1. Paragraph [0051-0052].
Applicant’s Specification further states another way to tune the viscoelastic properties of a composite is by way of a high-performance sizing chemistry, such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 8,129,018. The high-performance sizing composition includes an epoxy film former, a silane package that includes an aminosilane coupling agent and an epoxy silane coupling agent, one or more lubricants, and an antistatic agent. Paragraphs [0074-0075].
It is noted the limitation, “a main relaxation temperature of the fiber reinforced composite material is tuned to be in a range between 110°C and about 140°C by selection of the glass fibers and composition of the sizing composition” is a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, it is not necessary the prior art explicitly teach tuning the main relaxation temperature by selection of the glass fiber and composition of the sizing composition. It is required the prior art teaches the main relaxation temperature in a range between about 110°C and 140°C.
In view of Applicant’s Specification, it is the Examiner’s opinion the following are necessary to achieve the claimed unidirectional laminate comprising a fiber reinforced composite having a main relaxation temperature in a range between about 110°C and 140°C and possessing a tensile modulus of at least 45 GPa at a fiber weight fraction greater than or equal to 50% and fatigue mechanical performance of at least 450 MPa at 1 MM cycles, measured according to ASTM E 739-931:
Glass fibers comprising a glass composition comprising about 55.0 to about 65.0% by weight SiO2, about 17.0 to about 27.0% by weight Al2O3, about 8.0 to about 15.0% by weight MgO, about 7.0 to about 12.0% by weight CaO, about 0.0 to about 1.0% by weight Na2O, 0 to about 2.0% by weight TiO2, 0 to about 2.0% by weight Fe2O3, and no more than 0.5% by weight Li2O. Advantageously, the ratio of the weight percent of alumina oxide and magnesium oxide (Al2O3/MgO) is no greater than 2.0, such as no greater than 1.9, and no greater than 1.8. Additionally, the ratio of the weight percent of magnesium oxide to calcium oxide (MgO/CaO) is advantageously at least 1.2.
Glass fibers achieves an elastic modulus of at least about 85 GPa.
High-performance sizing composition comprising an epoxy film former, a polyurethane film former, a silane package that includes an aminosilane coupling agent and an epoxy silane coupling agent, one or more lubricants, an antistatic agent, and a boron-containing compound.
The matrix resin is comprised of a resin selected from: polyester resins, vinylester resins, polyurethane resins, a bio-based resin, and a styrene-free resin.
The unidirectional laminate is obtained through vacuum infusion.
Adolphs teaches a unidirectional laminate comprising a fiber reinforced composite material comprising a plurality of unidirectional reinforcement glass fibers coated with a sizing agent and a matrix resin. The composite material is formed by vacuum infusion. The matrix resin is a polyester or polyurethane resin. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0007], [0016], [0024], [0048], [0052], [0054-0057], [0069], [0086-0087], and [0089-0090].
Adolphs teaches the fiber reinforced composite material comprises glass fibers comprising any conventional glass composition and any conventional sizing composition. Adolphs does not explicitly teach the composition of the glass fibers (A), the sizing agent (B), and the sizing composition further comprising a co-film former (C).
With respect to the difference, Nonaka (A) teaches a long fiber reinforced composite comprising glass fibers possessing compositions falling within the ranges described in Applicant’s specification for SiO2 (59.2%), Al2O3 (20.1%), MgO (12.6%), CaO (9.5%), Na2O (0), TiO2, Fe2O3 (0.1%), Li2O, Al2O3/MgO ratio (1.6), and MgO/CaO ratio (1.5), as shown in Table 1. The glass fibers possess an elastic modulus of greater than 85 GPa, including 88 GPa. The glass fibers possess a strength of 4 GPa. The glass fibers are treated with a sizing and impregnated with a thermoplastic resin including polyurethane resin. The glass fibers are excellent in strength and modulus of elasticity. In addition, the glass fibers are easily produced. The glass fibers are excellent in flex resistance, suppress breakage and fluffing, and improve quality and production efficiency. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0013-0025], [0027], [0030], [0035], [0040], [0052], and see Example 2 in Tables 1-3. Given Table 1 does not report amounts of TiO2 and Li2O, it follows the amount in the composition is 0.
Nonaka and Adolphs are analogous art as they are both drawn to glass fiber composites.
In light of the motivation as provided by Nonaka, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the glass fibers as taught by Nonaka in the fiber reinforced composite of Adolphs, in order to provide the composite excellent strength, excellent modulus of elasticity, excellent flex resistance, reduced breakage and fluffing, improved quality, and production efficiency, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Hartman (B) teaches a fiber reinforced composite material comprising glass fibers coated with a sizing composition. The sizing composition contains an epoxy film former, a polyurethane film former, a silane package comprising an aminosilane coupling agent and an epoxy silane coupling agent, one or more lubricants, an anti-static agent, and a boron-containing compound. The reinforced composite made from fibers sized with the sizing composition demonstrate improved wet mechanical properties, improved strength, low level of broken filaments, and improved mechanical properties of the composite part. In addition, the sizing is environmentally friendly. See, e.g., abstract, col. 2, lines 30-44, col. 2 line 56 – col. 3, line 10, col. 3 line 66 – col. 4, line 4, col. 11, lines 64-66, col. 14, lines 37-42, col. 15, lines 32-37, and claims 15-22.
Hartman and Adolphs in view of Nonaka are analogous art as they are both drawn to sized glass fibers for a fiber reinforced composite.
In light of the motivation as provided by Hartman, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the sizing composition of Hartman to the glass fibers of Adolphs in view of Nonaka, in order to form a fiber reinforced composite with improved wet mechanical properties, improved strength, low level of broken filaments, improved mechanical properties and ensure the work environment is environmentally friendly, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Piret (C) teaches a sizing composition for glass fibers comprising a film former. The film former is a mixture of epoxy film former with an unsaturated polyester co-film former to enhance wetting by a specific matrix, including polyurethane resins. The film former protects the glass fiber from damage during processing and imparts compatibility of the fibers with the matrix. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0017-0024], [0032], [0055], and [0064-0071].
Piret and Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman are analogous art as they are both drawn to glass fiber reinforced composite material.
In light of the motivation as provided by Piret, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an unsaturated polyester co-film former in the fiber composite of Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman, in order to enhance wetting by a specific matrix, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hartman further teaches film formers are added to the sizing composition in an amount up to 10% by weight solids. The film former functions to protect the fibers form damage during processing and imparts compatibility of the fibers with the matrix resin. Col. 4, lines 15-17, Col. 15, lines 32-41, col. 15, line 55 – col. 16, line 30, see tables 11 and 12, and claim 1.
Given the unsaturated polyester film former of Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman is added to the sizing composition for the same purpose of protecting the fibers from damage during processing and imparting compatibility of the fibers with the matrix resin, in addition to enhancing wetting by a specific matrix, and given Hartman teaches adding the film former in an amount up to 10% by weight solids, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include up to 10% by weight solids of the unsaturated polyester film former in the sizing composition of Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman, in order to produce a sizing composition with enhanced wetting by a specific matrix with predictable success, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Therefore, the claimed properties, including a main relaxation temperature in a range between about 110°C and 140°C, a tensile modulus of at least 45 GPa at a fiber volume fraction greater than or equal to 50%, a fatigue mechanical performance of at least 450 MPa at 1 MM cycles, and a storage modulus drop between about 15 and 35 GPa, are deemed to be intrinsic to the unidirectional laminate of Adolphs in view of Nonaka, Hartman, and Piret as the unidirectional laminate of Adolphs in view of Nonaka, Hartman, and Piret possesses the structural, compositional, and manufacturing requirements (a)-(e), set forth above, deemed necessary to achieve the claimed limitations in view of Applicant’s specification.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 22
Adolphs in view of Nonaka, Hartman, and Piret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Adolphs further teaches a wind turbine blade comprising the unidirectional laminate. Paragraphs [0075] and [0090].
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 6-16, and 21-22 are substantially maintained. Any modification to the rejection is in response to the amendment of claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant primarily argues the rejection of Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman is insufficient because the Examiner relies upon an alleged to combine the references without specifically articulating “a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the references or to combine reference teachings”. Applicant argues the Examiner’s conclusion on page 7 presumes the existence of an actual motivation to combine Nonaka and Adolphs without making the required specific findings as to the specific nature of the alleged motivation. This leaves the record incomplete and hinders Applicant’s ability to fully address the asserted combination of references and the rejection. Remarks, pages 9-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, it is noted Nonaka is relied upon to teach the composition of the glass fibers as indicated on pages 6-7 of the Office Action mailed 08/26/2025 and in the Office Action above. On page 7 of the Office Action, the Office Action states “Adolphs does not explicitly teach the composition of glass fibers (A) or the sizing agent (B). With respect to the difference, Nonaka (A)…” The “(A)” is used to indicate that Nonaka is a secondary referenced used to address the composition of glass fibers (A) as further discussed on page 7.
Secondly, it is the Examiner’s opinion the Office Action provides a clear and complete record as to how Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman meets the claimed limitation. The combination of Adolphs in view of Nonaka is repeated below:
“With respect to the difference, Nonaka (A) teaches a long fiber reinforced composite comprising glass fibers possessing compositions falling within the ranges described in Applicant’s specification for SiO2 (59.2%), Al2O3 (20.1%), MgO (12.6%), CaO (9.5%), Na2O (0), TiO2, Fe2O3 (0.1%), Li2O, Al2O3/MgO ratio (1.6), and MgO/CaO ratio (1.5), as shown in Table 1. The glass fibers possess an elastic modulus of greater than 85 GPa, including 88 GPa. The glass fibers possess a strength of 4 GPa. The glass fibers are treated with a sizing and impregnated with a thermoplastic resin including polyurethane resin. The glass fibers are excellent in strength and modulus of elasticity. In addition, the glass fibers are easily produced. The glass fibers are excellent in flex resistance, suppress breakage and fluffing, and improve quality and production efficiency. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0013-0025], [0027], [0030], [0035], [0040], [0052], and see Example 2 in Tables 1-3. Given Table 1 does not report amounts of TiO2 and Li2O, it follows the amount in the composition is 0.
Nonaka and Adolphs are analogous art as they are both drawn to glass fiber composites.
In light of the motivation as provided by Nonaka, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the glass fibers as taught by Nonaka in the fiber reinforced composite of Adolphs, in order to provide the composite excellent strength, excellent modulus of elasticity, excellent flex resistance, reduced breakage and fluffing, improved quality, and production efficiency, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.” Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/26/2028, pages 6-7. Non-Final Rejection repeated above.
Pages 6-7 clearly states how Nonaka teaches a substantially identical composition of glass fibers as used in the present invention and outlines proper motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Nonaka to modify Adolphs. Specifically, on page 7, and repeated above, the Office Action states: “The glass fibers are excellent in strength and modulus of elasticity. In addition, the glass fibers are easily produced. The glass fibers are excellent in flex resistance, suppress breakage and fluffing, and improve quality and production efficiency.” The Office Action cites the abstract and paragraphs [0013-0014] and [0040] where the advantages of the glass fibers of Nonaka are taught. The motivation statement later cites these advantages: “In light of the motivation as provided by Nonaka, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the glass fibers as taught by Nonaka in the fiber reinforced composite of Adolphs, in order to produce the composite excellent strength, excellent modulus of elasticity, excellent flex resistance, reduced breakage and fluffing, improved quality, and production efficiency.” (emphasis added).
In view of the above, it is not clear how the conclusion on page 7 leaves the record incomplete and hinders Applicant’s ability to fully address the asserted combination of references and the rejection.
Applicant further argues as with Nonaka, the Examiner’s conclusion presumes the existence of an actual motivation to combine “the glass fibers of Adolphs in view of Nonaka” and Hartman without making the required specific finding as to the specific nature of the alleged motivation. This leaves the record incomplete and hinders Applicant’s ability to fully address the asserted combination of references and the rejection. Remarks, pages 10-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, it is noted Hartman is relied upon to teach the sizing agent as indicated on pages 6-8 of the Office Action mailed 08/26/2025 and in the Office Action above. On page 6 of the Office Action, the Office Action states “Adolphs does not explicitly teach the composition of glass fibers (A) or the sizing agent (B).” On page 7 of the Office Action, the Office Action states “With respect to the difference, Hartman (B)…” The “(B)” is used to indicate that Hartman is a secondary referenced used to address the sizing agent (B) as further discussed on pages 7-8.
Secondly, it is the Examiner’s opinion the Office Action provides a clear and complete record as to how Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman meets the claimed limitation. The combination of Adolphs in view of Nonaka and Hartman is repeated below:
“With respect to the difference, Hartman (B) teaches a fiber reinforced composite material comprising glass fibers coated with a sizing composition. The sizing composition contains an epoxy film former, a polyurethane film former, a silane package comprising an aminosilane coupling agent and an epoxy silane coupling agent, one or more lubricants, an anti-static agent, and a boron-containing compound. The reinforced composite made from fibers sized with the sizing composition demonstrate improved wet mechanical properties, improved strength, low level of broken filaments, and improved mechanical properties of the composite part. In addition, the sizing is environmentally friendly. See, e.g., abstract, col. 2, lines 30-44, col. 2 line 56 – col. 3, line 10, col. 3 line 66 – col. 4, line 4, col. 11, lines 64-66, col. 14, lines 37-42, col. 15, lines 32-37, and claims 15-22.
Hartman and Adolphs in view of Nonaka are analogous art as they are both drawn to sized glass fibers for a fiber reinforced composite.
In light of the motivation as provided by Hartman, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the sizing composition of Hartman to the glass fibers of Adolphs in view of Nonaka, in order to form a fiber reinforced composite with improved wet mechanical properties, improved strength, low level of broken filaments, improved mechanical properties and ensure the work environment is environmentally friendly, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.” Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/26/2028, pages 7-8. Non-Final Rejection repeated above.
Pages 7-8 clearly states how Hartman teaches a substantially identical sizing agent as used in the present invention and outlines proper motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hartman to modify Adolphs in view of Nonaka. Specifically, on page 7, and repeated above, the Office Action states: “The reinforced composite made from fibers sized with the sizing composition demonstrated improved wet mechanical properties, improved strength, low level of broken filaments, and improved mechanical properties of the composite part. In addition, the sizing is environmentally friendly.” The Office Action cites col. 2, lines 56 – col. 3, line 10, where the advantages of the sizing agent of Hartman are taught. The motivation statement later cites these advantages: “In light of the motivation as provided by Hartman, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the sizing composition of Hartman to the glass fibers of Adolphs in view of Nonaka, in order to form a fiber reinforced composite with improved wet mechanical properties, improved strength, low level of broken filaments, improved mechanical properties and ensure the work environment is environmentally friendly.” (emphasis added).
In view of the above, it is not clear how the conclusion on pages 7-8 leaves the record incomplete and hinders Applicant’s ability to fully address the asserted combination of references and the rejection.
Applicant further argues the Examiner’s rejection is insufficient because the Examiner has not articulated “a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success” with respect to both the combination of Adolphs and Nonaka and the combination of the glass fibers of Adolphs in view of Nonaka” and Hartman. Remarks, page 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
The MPEP states reasonable expectation of success can be implicitly shown via the prior art teachings or as part of the obviousness analysis. See MPEP 2143.02.
As discussed on pages 6-7 of the Office Action mailed 08/26/2025 and repeated above, since the glass fibers of Nonaka are treated with a sizing agent and impregnated with a thermoplastic resin, such as a polyurethane resin, to form glass fiber reinforced composites, and since Adolphs teaches a fiber reinforced composite material comprising glass fibers comprising any conventional glass composition and any conventional sizing composition in a polyurethane resin, it follows there is a reasonable expectation of success of using the glass fibers of Nonaka in the fiber reinforced composite of Adolphs.
As discussed on pages 6-8 of the Office Action mailed 08/26/2025 and repeated above, since the sizing composition of Hartman is used to coat glass fibers to form a fiber reinforced composite material, and since Adolphs teaches a fiber reinforced composite material comprising glass fibers comprising any conventional glass composition and any conventional sizing composition, it follows there is a reasonable expectation of success of using the sizing composition of Hartman in the fiber reinforced composite of Adolphs.
Applicant further argues the combined teachings of Adolphs, Nonaka, Hartman, and Piret fail to teach of suggest sizing compositions containing one or more of the listed co-film formers in the specific amounts, particularly in combination with the other elements and limitations of independent claim 1. Remarks, pages 11-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
For the reasons set forth on pages 9-10 of the Office Action mailed 08/26/2025 and in the Office Action above, it is the Examiner’s opinion the rejection teaches the claimed sizing composition containing one or more of the listed co-film formers in the specific amounts, particularly in combination with the other elements and limitations of independent claim 1. Since Applicant has not specifically stated what is missing from the rejection or provided evidence showing the missing teaching, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights