FINAL 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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2020/049255 filed 12/28/2020.
This application also claims foreign benefit of JAPAN JP2019-239906 filed 12/27/2019.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Accordingly, pending claims 17-26 of this instant application are afforded the effective filing date of 12/28/2020.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 06/08/2026 in which claims 1-16 and 27-33 were canceled; and claims 17 and 19-26 were amended. All the amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered.
Claims 17-26 are under examination.
Modified Rejections
Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (US 2016/0303531 A1) in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho et al (WO 2020/077451 A1; published date: 23 April 2020; filing date: 16 October 2019) and Shimizu et al (US 2013/0156834 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Yamazaki teaches a method of producing silica microcapsule which has shell and a core containing an organic compound such as a fragrance material inside the shell, wherein the shell comprises silica, the method comprises emulsifying an aqueous phase containing a cationic surfactant and an oil phase containing the organic compound and tetraalkoxysiliane, to a sol-gel reaction under acidic condition, thereby obtaining a water dispersion containing the silica microcapsule (Abstract; [0007]-[0091], and [0107]-[0108]; Production Example 1). Yamazaki further teaches tetraalkoxysilane is additionally added to the water dispersion containing the silica microcapsules and performing a sol-gel reaction, to form silica microcapsule having a second shell that enclosed the first shell (Abstract; [0016]; 55-59).
While Yamazaki does not expressly teach the organic compound is a primary alcohol that has 4 or more and 18 or less carbon atoms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a primary alcohol such as geraniol as the fragrance material that is encapsuled in the silica microcapsules of Yamazaki in view of the guidance from Aboshyan-Sorgho.
Aboshyan-Sorgho teaches silica microcapsules having leak proofness and protective effect on entrapped actives such as fragrances against premature leaching during storage period, wherein the fragrance suitable for encapsulation in the silica microcapsule is preferably geraniol ([0025]-[0035]; [0078], [0114], [0162], [0173]-[0175] and [0273]-[0309]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use and incorporate geraniol as the fragrance material in the silica microcapsules of Yamazaki, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yamazaki and Aboshyan-Sorgho are commonly drawn to silica microcapsules encapsulating a fragrance material, and Aboshyan-Sorgho provides the direct guidance for using incorporate geraniol as the fragrance material in the silica microcapsules, as geraniol is one of the preferred fragrance material suitable for encapsulation in silica microcapsules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in using use and incorporate geraniol as the fragrance material in the silica microcapsules of Yamazaki because Yamazaki indicated that the organic compound (fragrance material) suitable for encapsulation in the silica microcapsules are organic compounds having a ClogP value of not less than 2 (Yamazaki: [0028]), and geraniol as taught in Aboshyan-Sorgho is within the scope of the organic compound of Aboshyan-Sorgho, as per instant specification, geraniol of Aboshyan-Sorgho has clogP of 3.3 (Specification: [0083] and Table 5).
However, Yamazaki and Aboshyan-Sorgho do not teach the diluting step of claim 17.
Regarding the diluting step of claim 17, Shimizu teaches a method of treating silica sol-gel microcapsules comprising diluting the silica sol-gel microcapsules with water and then adding SiO2, thereby forming silica microcapsules with improved stability and denser capsule walls and/or microcapsules exhibiting hybrid capsule walls (Abstract; [0001]-[0033]; Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further treat the silica sol-gel microcapsules of Yamazaki in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho by diluting the silica sol-gel microcapsules with water and then adding SiO2, and produce the claimed invention . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Shimizu provided the guidance to do so by teaching that the silica sol-gel microcapsules of Yamazaki in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho can be further treated by diluting the microcapsules in 2L water, followed by addition of SiO2 so as to form silica microcapsules with improved stability and denser capsule walls and/or microcapsules exhibiting hybrid capsule walls. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to enhance stability of the silica microcapsules, as well as, provide denser capsule walls and/or microcapsules exhibiting hybrid capsule walls, would have looked to treating the silica sol-gel microcapsules of Yamazaki in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho by diluting the silica sol-gel microcapsules with water and then adding SiO2, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Shimizu teaches the silica sol-gel microcapsules was diluted in 2L of water (Example 1), which is a dilution that fall within the claimed “dilution ratio is 2 times or more and 20 times or less” of claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Aboshyan-Sorgho teaches and provides guidance for optimizing the amount of geraniol used as the fragrance material to an amount from 5% to 50% by weight ([0078], [00137] and [00139]), which is a range that overlaps the claimed range of “a content of the primary alcohol in the organic compound is 5% to 100% by mass, based on the total mass of the organic compound.” Thus, it is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see 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); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, the optimization of the content of primary alcohol in the organic compound would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant's invention. “Where 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above, Aboshyan-Sorgho teaches geraniol as the fragrance material. It is noted that geraniol meets the claimed organic compound of claim 17 and thus, it would have been reasonably obvious that the oil-water interfacial tension of claim 21 would be implicit in the geraniol of Aboshyan-Sorgho because as evidenced by Findenegg, the oil-water interfacial tension of geraniol is about 43 mN/m (Findenegg: page 9; Figure 4). Thus, it is noted that [w]here 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 22-25, as discussed above, Aboshyan-Sorgho teaches geraniol as the fragrance material, which is a C10 primary alcohol that is fragrance, thereby meeting the claimed primary alcohol of claims 22, 24, and 25. As evidenced by the instant specification, geraniol of Yamazaki has clogP of 3.3, thereby meeting the claimed “the primary alcohol has clogP of 1.0 to 7.0” of claim 23. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 26, Yamazaki teaches the microcapsules have an average particle size of 0.5 to 50 µm ([0009], [0015], [0069]), which overlaps the particle size distribution of the silica microcapsules have a median diameter D50 of 1.0 µm to 100 µm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the average particle size so as to arrive a desired D50 particle size distribution. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see 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); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, the optimization of median diameter D50 of the silica microcapsules would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant's invention. “Where 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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Examples 1 and 2 of Shimizu et al. only describe "a reaction
system adjusted to 2 L using water" and "diluting water glass with water." Thus, Shimizu et al. simply "adjusts the volume of the capsule suspension to 2 L and dilutes the water glass to be added" during the "step of preparing a silica capsule suspension," which corresponds to step 1 of the present application. Shimizu et al. does not disclose or suggest a step of further diluting the aqueous dispersion after the formation of the first shell of the capsule, as required by present Claim 17.” (Remarks, page bottom of page 6 to page 7).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. Example 1 of Shimizu provides for the treatment of suspension of silica sol-gel microcapsules (Eusolex® UV-Pearls OMC). The suspension of silica sol-gel microcapsules in Example 1 of Shimizu is the starting material that is further treated. It is noted the suspension of silica sol-gel microcapsules of Shimizu correlates to Applicant’s claimed “water dispersion containing the silica microcapsules formed in in step 1 of claim 17, as well as, the correlates to the silica sol-gel microcapsules formed in Yamazaki. In Example 1 of Shimizu and as discussed in the standing 103 rejection, Shimizu provided the guidance for further treating the silica sol-gel microcapsules by diluting the microcapsules in 2 L water, followed by addition of SiO2 so as to form silica microcapsules with improved stability and denser walls and/or microcapsules exhibiting hybrid capsule walls. See 103 rejection, pages 5-6 of this office action. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s allegation, Shimizu does in fact provide guidance for the claimed step 2’ drawn to “diluting the silica (1)-containing water dispersion obtained in the step 1 through addition of water, and then further adding tetraalkoxysilane and performing a sol-gel reaction, thereby forming silica microcapsules having a second shell that encloses the first shell.”
Applicant argues “the examples in the present application, performing the dilution step affords an improved particle size, which is not disclosed in any of the cited references.” (Remarks, page 7, 1st paragraph).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. It is noted that nowhere in claim 17 does it recite any particle size and thus, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., particle size) 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). Furthermore, after a review of the examples in the specification, it does not appear that the dilution step provides for the improved particle size. Nowhere in the specification does it disclosed that it is the dilution step that provides for the improved particle size.
Applicant argues that “Yamazaki is based on an emulsion system containing a surfactant” and “Aboshyan-Sorgho et al. specifies surfactant-free conditions as a process requirement” and thus, alleges that “Aboshvan-Sorgho et al. teaches away from emulsion systems which use surfactants.” (Remarks, pages 7-8).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. Aboshvan-Sorgho was used for providing guidance for geraniol as the fragrance material in a silica microcapsule. Aboshvan-Sorgho was not used for the process of producing the silica microcapsule. Both Yamazaki and Aboshyan-Sorgho resultant products are silica microcapsules and thus, Aboshvan-Sorgho does not teach away but rather teaches towards Applicant’s claimed invention or the use of geraniol as the fragrance material in a silica microcapsule. Thus, Yamazaki and Aboshyan-Sorgho are properly combined the standing 103 rejection because "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
As a result, for at least the reason discussed above, claims 17-26 remain rejected as obvious and unpatentable over the combined teachings of the cited prior arts in the standing 103 rejection set forth in this office action.
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 17-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10046291 in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho et al (WO 2020/077451 A1) and Shimizu et al (US 2013/0156834 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in Patent ‘291 significantly overlap with the subject matter of the instant claims i.e., methods of producing silica microcapsules with substantially the same method steps.
The differences between the methods of the instant claims to the methods of Patent’291 are the methods of the instant claims contain a primary alcohol that has 4 or more or 18 or less carbon atoms as part of the organic compound component as recited in instant claim 17, and the diluting step and dilution ratio recited in instant claims 17 and 18, respectively.
It would have been obvious to use a primary alcohol such as geraniol as the organic compound in the claims of the Patent ‘291 in view of the guidance from Aboshyan-Sorgho geraniol ([0025]-[0035]; [0078], [0114], [0162], [0173]-[0175] and [0273]-[0309]).
It would also have been obvious to further dilute the silica sol-gel microcapsules of the claims in the Patent ‘291 with water and then adding SiO2 thereafter so as to form silica microcapsules with denser capsule walls in in view of the guidance from Shimizu (Abstract; [0001]-[0033]; Example 1).
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over U.S. Patent No. 10046291 in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho and Shimizu.
Claims 17-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18259702 (reference application) in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho et al (WO 2020/077451 A1) and Shimizu et al (US 2013/0156834 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in copending Application ‘702 significantly overlap with the subject matter of the instant claims i.e., methods of producing silica microcapsules with substantially the same method steps.
The differences between the methods of the instant claims to the methods of copending Application ‘702 are the methods of the instant claims contains a primary alcohol that has 4 or more or 18 or less carbon atoms as part of the organic compound component as recited in instant claim 17, and the diluting step and dilution ratio recited in instant claims 17 and 18, respectively.
It would have been obvious to use a primary alcohol such as geraniol as the organic compound, as well as, forming a second shell on the silica microcapsule in the claims of copending Application ‘702 in view of the guidance from Aboshyan-Sorgho geraniol ([0025]-[0035]; [0078], [0114], [0162], [0173]-[0175] and [0273]-[0309]).
It would also have been obvious to further dilute the silica sol-gel microcapsules of the claims in the copending Application ‘702 with water and then adding SiO2 thereafter so as to form silica microcapsules with denser capsule walls in in view of the guidance from Shimizu (Abstract; [0001]-[0033]; Example 1).
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over copending Application No. 18259702 in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho and Shimizu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 17-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18259227 (reference application) in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho et al (WO 2020/077451 A1) and Shimizu et al (US 2013/0156834 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the instant claims are drawn to methods of producing silica microcapsule, and the claims in copending Application ‘702 are drawn to silica microcapsule and methods of producing the silica microcapsule, both set of claims significantly overlap with the subject matter of the instant claims i.e., methods of producing silica microcapsules with substantially the same method steps.
The differences between the methods of the instant claims to the methods of copending Application ‘227 are the methods of the instant claims contain a primary alcohol that has 4 or more or 18 or less carbon atoms as part of the organic compound component as recited in instant claim 17, and the diluting step and dilution ratio recited in instant claims 17 and 18, respectively..
It would have been obvious to use a primary alcohol such as geraniol as the organic compound, as well as, forming a second shell on the silica microcapsule in the claims of copending Application ‘227 in view of the guidance from Aboshyan-Sorgho geraniol ([0025]-[0035]; [0078], [0114], [0162], [0173]-[0175] and [0273]-[0309]).
It would also have been obvious to further dilute the silica sol-gel microcapsules of the claims in the copending Application ‘227 with water and then adding SiO2 thereafter so as to form silica microcapsules with denser capsule walls in in view of the guidance from Shimizu (Abstract; [0001]-[0033]; Example 1).
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over copending Application No. 18259227 in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho and Shimizu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the double patenting rejection over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10046291 has been obviated by amendment and that there was nothing in the combined teachings of Aboshyan-Sorgho and Shimizu which would suggest the method of present claim 17. (Remarks, page 8, last paragraph to page 9).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. The combined teachings of Aboshyan-Sorgho and Shimizu are properly used in the standing obviousness-type double patenting rejection over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10046291, for the reason discussed on pages 13-14 of this office action, said pages being incorporated herein in its entirety. Thus, it is maintained that the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over U.S. Patent No. 10046291 in view of Aboshyan-Sorgho and Shimizu.
Applicant argues that the provisional double patent rejections over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18259702 and claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18259227 have been obviated by the filing of a duly executed terminal disclaimer. (Remarks, page 9).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. There was no terminal disclaimer filed of record and thus, the provisional double patent rejections over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18259702 and claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18259227, are maintained for the reason of record, pending filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights