DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the nucleating agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Kishi et al. (JP H05140435 A), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations). It is noted that the disclosures of Sugano et al. are based on a machine translation (cited in IDS) of the reference. It is noted that the disclosures of Kishi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 16, 21 and 27, Sugano et al. disclose a resin composition comprising 1 to 99 wt% of aromatic polycarbonate and 99 to 1 wt% of aromatic polyester such as polybutylene terephthalate (see Abstract). That is, a combined amount of the aromatic polycarbonate and polyester is 100 wt%. The aromatic polycarbonate can be a homopolycarbonate produced by the melt transesterification of dihydroxy compound such as 2,2-bis-(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane, i.e. bisphenol A and a carbonic diester such as diphenyl carbonate, i.e. diaryl carbonate (see Abstract and paragraphs 0014, 0015). The terminal hydroxyl group of the aromatic homopolycarbonate by the melt transesterification method is 3 mol% or more and less than 60 mol% (see paragraph 0011). Accordingly, the endcap level is 40 to 97 mol%. As evidenced by the present specification, the endcap level is defined as the percentage of polycarbonate chains which are not hydroxyl groups and the endcap level is determined using mol% of terminal hydroxyl group (see paragraph 0041 of published application). Given that the aromatic homopolycarbonate is produced by the melt transesterification process, the aromatic homopolycarbonate is a melt polycarbonate and the aromatic homopolycarbonate comprises 100 wt% of the melt polycarbonate. The viscosity average molecular weight of the aromatic homopolycarbonate is 23,000 (see paragraph 0030). While Sugano et al. do not disclose weight average molecular weight, given the relationship between viscosity average molecular weight (Mv) and weight average molecular weight (Mw), i.e. Mv ≤ Mw as evidenced by Jordi (see page 2, first paragraph and Figure 1) and given the broad weight average molecular weight range claimed, it is clear that the viscosity average molecular weight of Sugano et al. would fall within with the broad range of weight average molecular weight determined using gel permeation chromatography with polycarbonate standards as presently claimed.
Sugano et al. do not disclose the aromatic polycarbonate comprises a polymer miscible with said melt polycarbonate, said polymer having a glass transition temperature higher than the glass transition temperature of said melt polycarbonate.
Kishi et al. disclose a polycarbonate resin blended with a low-molecular weight acrylic polymer that improves melt flowability of the polycarbonate resin without impairing good mechanical properties and heat resistance (see Abstract and paragraphs 0001, 0008). The polycarbonate resin can be obtained from bisphenol A (see paragraph 0005). The low-molecular weight acrylic polymer can be copolymer of methyl acrylate and styrene, i.e. styrene-methyl-acrylate copolymer (see paragraph 0006).
In light of motivation for using styrene-methyl-acrylate copolymer disclosed by Kishi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use styrene-methyl-acrylate copolymer of Kishi et al. blended with the melt polycarbonate in Sugano et al. in order to improve melt flowability of the aromatic polycarbonate without impairing good mechanical properties and heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the aromatic polycarbonate comprising melt polycarbonate and styrene-methyl-acrylate copolymer. Given that styrene-methyl-acrylate copolymer is identical to a polymer miscible with melt polycarbonate as presently claimed and given that Sugano et al. disclose melt polycarbonate identical to that presently claimed, it is clear that the styrene-methyl-acrylate copolymer has a glass transition temperature higher than the glass transition temperature of the melt polycarbonate.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Further, Sugano et al. disclose a polycarbonate resin is used in electrical and home appliance parts (see paragraph 0002).
Therefore, as taught by Sugano et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to prepare an article comprising the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al., wherein the article is an electrical appliance (electrical equipment), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. That is, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose an article comprising the composition and an electrical equipment comprising the article as presently claimed.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Kishi et al. (JP H05140435 A), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Del Agua Hernandez et al. (WO 2017/145075 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. do not disclose the melt polycarbonate has a Fries branching content of at most 2000 ppm by weight and at least 1000 ppm by weight.
Del Agua Hernandez et al. disclose a melt polycarbonate having Fries branching content of less than 1500 ppm in order to have a good moldability and impact strength as well as desired flowability (see Abstract and paragraphs 0038-0040).
In light of motivation for using the melt polycarbonate having Fries branching content of less than 1500 ppm disclosed by Del Agua Hernandez et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the melt polycarbonate having Fries branching content of less than 1500 ppm in Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. in order to have a good moldability and impact strength as well as desired flowability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the resin composition including an aromatic polycarbonate comprising the melt polycarbonate and the polymer miscible with the melt polycarbonate, and a polyester identical to that presently claimed with their amounts that overlap with that presently claimed. Therefore, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. would necessarily inherently have the same heat distortion temperature as presently claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Kishi et al. (JP H05140435 A), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fox et al. (3,953,394 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. While Sugano et al. disclose the polyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. do not disclose the polyester comprising a blend of polybutylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate as presently claimed.
Fox et al. disclose a blend of 1 to 99 parts by weight of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 parts by weight of polybutylene terephthalate (see Abstract and col. 3, lines 21-27). That is, the blend comprises 1 to 99 wt% of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate. The parts molded from the blend show properties such superior to those of either of the components (see col. 2, lines 4-7). The blend provides excellent appearance and economic advantages, without sacrifice of moldability, strength and heat distortion temperature (see col. 2, lines 32-37 and col. 2, lines 47-52). Given that Fox et al. disclose polyester comprising only polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate, the polyester consists of polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate (see Abstract and col. 3, lines 21-27).
In light of motivation for using a blend comprising 1 to 99 wt% of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate disclosed by Fox et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend comprising 1 to 99 wt% of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate of Fox et al. as the polyester instead of the polyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate in the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. in order to provide superior properties, excellent appearance and economic advantages, without sacrifice of moldability, strength and heat distortion temperature, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Kishi et al. (JP H05140435 A), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Goossens et al. (WO 2008/136839 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. do not disclose the article as presently claimed.
As indicated by Goossens et al., it is well known that the polycarbonate compositions can be molded into useful shaped articles such as automotive headlight lenses (automotive part) (see page 31, paragraph 2).
Therefore, as taught by Goossens et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to prepare an article comprising the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al., wherein the article is an automotive headlight lens, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The automotive head light lens reads on the article is a vehicular body part or the article is an automotive part.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Kishi et al. (JP H05140435 A), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chang et al. (US 9,045,633 B1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 17, Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. do not disclose the resin composition comprising a nucleating agent.
Chang et al. disclose a thermoplastic polycarbonate composition comprising an aromatic polycarbonate resin and a nucleating agent such as talc (see Abstract, col. 3, lines 8-11 and col. 7, lines 40-45). The amount of nucleating agent is about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt% in order to provide nucleation efficiency, heat resistance and impact resistance as well as surface appearance (see col.7, lines 50-51 and col. 7-8, lines 65-6).
In light of motivation for using about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt% of nucleating agent such as talc disclosed by Chang et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt% of nucleating agent such as talc in the resin composition comprising aromatic polycarbonate of Sugano et al. in view of Kishi et al. in order to provide nucleation efficiency, heat resistance and impact resistance as well as surface appearance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0295363 A1), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations). It is noted that the disclosures of Sugano et al. are based on a machine translation (cited in IDS) of the reference.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 16 and 24-27, Sugano et al. disclose a resin composition comprising 1 to 99 wt% of aromatic polycarbonate and 99 to 1 wt% of aromatic polyester such as polybutylene terephthalate (see Abstract). That is, a combined amount of the aromatic polycarbonate and polyester is 100 wt%. The aromatic polycarbonate can be a homopolycarbonate produced by the melt transesterification of dihydroxy compound such as 2,2-bis-(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane, i.e. bisphenol A and a carbonic diester such as diphenyl carbonate, i.e. diaryl carbonate (see Abstract and paragraphs 0014, 0015). The terminal hydroxyl group of the aromatic homopolycarbonate by the melt transesterification method is 3 mol% or more and less than 60 mol% (see paragraph 0011). Accordingly, the endcap level is 40 to 97 mol%. As evidenced by the present specification, the endcap level is defined as the percentage of polycarbonate chains which are not hydroxyl groups and the endcap level is determined using mol% of terminal hydroxyl group (see paragraph 0041 of published application). Given that the aromatic homopolycarbonate is produced by the melt transesterification process, the aromatic homopolycarbonate is a melt polycarbonate and the aromatic homopolycarbonate comprises 100 wt% of the melt polycarbonate. The viscosity average molecular weight of the aromatic homopolycarbonate is 23,000 (see paragraph 0030). While Sugano et al. do not disclose weight average molecular weight, given the relationship between viscosity average molecular weight (Mv) and weight average molecular weight (Mw), i.e. Mv ≤ Mw as evidenced by Jordi (see page 2, first paragraph and Figure 1) and given the broad weight average molecular weight range claimed, it is clear that the viscosity average molecular weight of Sugano et al. would fall within with the broad range of weight average molecular weight determined using gel permeation chromatography with polycarbonate standards as presently claimed.
Sugano et al. do not disclose the aromatic polycarbonate comprises a polymer miscible with said melt polycarbonate, said polymer having a glass transition temperature higher than the glass transition temperature of said melt polycarbonate.
Sun et al. disclose a polycarbonate blend comprising a first polycarbonate and a second polycarbonate that is used for preparing a molded part (see paragraphs 0001, 0041, 0127). The first polycarbonate is prepared from dihydroxy compounds such as PPPBP, bisphenol TMC or bisphenol AP (see paragraph 0052). The first polycarbonate reads on polycarbonates comprising carbonate units derived from PPPBP, Bisphenol-AP or Bisphenol-TMC as presently claimed. The first polycarbonate provides a heat resistance higher than BPA (bisphenol A) homopolymer alone (see paragraphs 0045, 0072). The second polycarbonate is BPA polymer (see paragraph 0074).
In light of motivation for using a first polycarbonate prepared from dihydroxy compounds such as PPPBP, bisphenol TMC or bisphenol AP disclosed by Sun et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use first polycarbonate prepared from dihydroxy compounds such as PPPBP, bisphenol TMC or bisphenol AP of Sun et al. blended with melt polycarbonate (BPA homopolymer) of Sugano et al. in order to improve heat resistance of the resin composition, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the aromatic polycarbonate comprising melt polycarbonate and polycarbonate comprising carbonate units derived from PPPBP, Bisphenol-AP or Bisphenol-TMC. Given that polycarbonate comprising carbonate units derived from PPPBP, Bisphenol-AP or Bisphenol-TMC is identical to a polymer miscible with melt polycarbonate as presently claimed and given that Sugano et al. disclose melt polycarbonate identical to that presently claimed, it is clear that polycarbonate comprising carbonate units derived from PPPBP, Bisphenol-AP or Bisphenol-TMC has a glass transition temperature higher than the glass transition temperature of the melt polycarbonate.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Further, Sugano et al. disclose a polycarbonate resin is used in electrical and home appliance parts (see paragraph 0002).
Therefore, as taught by Sugano et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to prepare an article comprising the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al., wherein the article is an electrical appliance (electrical equipment), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. That is, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose an article comprising the composition and an electrical equipment comprising the article as presently claimed.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0295363 A1), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Del Agua Hernandez et al. (WO 2017/145075 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. do not disclose the melt polycarbonate has a Fries branching content of at most 2000 ppm by weight and at least 1000 ppm by weight.
Del Agua Hernandez et al. disclose a melt polycarbonate having Fries branching content of less than 1500 ppm in order to have a good moldability and impact strength as well as desired flowability (see Abstract and paragraphs 0038-0040).
In light of motivation for using the melt polycarbonate having Fries branching content of less than 1500 ppm disclosed by Del Agua Hernandez et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the melt polycarbonate having Fries branching content of less than 1500 ppm in Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. in order to have a good moldability and impact strength as well as desired flowability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the resin composition including an aromatic polycarbonate comprising the melt polycarbonate and the polymer miscible with the melt polycarbonate, and a polyester identical to that presently claimed with their amounts that overlap with that presently claimed. Therefore, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. would necessarily inherently have the same heat distortion temperature as presently claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0295363 A1), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fox et al. (3,953,394 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. While Sugano et al. disclose the polyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. do not disclose the polyester comprising a blend of polybutylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate as presently claimed.
Fox et al. disclose a blend of 1 to 99 parts by weight of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 parts by weight of polybutylene terephthalate (see Abstract and col. 3, lines 21-27). That is, the blend comprises 1 to 99 wt% of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate. The parts molded from the blend show properties such superior to those of either of the components (see col. 2, lines 4-7). The blend provides excellent appearance and economic advantages, without sacrifice of moldability, strength and heat distortion temperature (see col. 2, lines 32-37 and col. 2, lines 47-52). Given that Fox et al. disclose polyester comprising only polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate, the polyester consists of polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate (see Abstract and col. 3, lines 21-27).
In light of motivation for using a blend comprising 1 to 99 wt% of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate disclosed by Fox et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend comprising 1 to 99 wt% of polyethylene terephthalate and 1 to 99 wt% of polybutylene terephthalate of Fox et al. as the polyester instead of the polyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate in the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. in order to provide superior properties, excellent appearance and economic advantages, without sacrifice of moldability, strength and heat distortion temperature, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0295363 A1), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Goossens et al. (WO 2008/136839 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. do not disclose the article as presently claimed.
As indicated by Goossens et al., it is well known that the polycarbonate compositions can be molded into useful shaped articles such as automotive headlight lenses (automotive part) (see page 31, paragraph 2).
Therefore, as taught by Goossens et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to prepare an article comprising the resin composition of Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al., wherein the article is an automotive headlight lens, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The automotive head light lens reads on the article is a vehicular body part or the article is an automotive part.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (JP H0912843 A cited in IDS) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0295363 A1), taken in view of evidence by Jordi (Mw Averages Explanations) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chang et al. (US 9,045,633 B1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 17, Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. disclose the resin composition as set forth above. Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. do not disclose the resin composition comprising a nucleating agent.
Chang et al. disclose a thermoplastic polycarbonate composition comprising an aromatic polycarbonate resin and a nucleating agent such as talc (see Abstract, col. 3, lines 8-11 and col. 7, lines 40-45). The amount of nucleating agent is about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt% in order to provide nucleation efficiency, heat resistance and impact resistance as well as surface appearance (see col.7, lines 50-51 and col. 7-8, lines 65-6).
In light of motivation for using about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt% of nucleating agent such as talc disclosed by Chang et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt% of nucleating agent such as talc in the resin composition comprising aromatic polycarbonate of Sugano et al. in view of Sun et al. in order to provide nucleation efficiency, heat resistance and impact resistance as well as surface appearance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
In light of amendments, previous 112(a) paragraph rejections and 112(b) paragraph rejections are withdrawn. However, a new 112(b) paragraph rejection is set forth above.
In light of amendments, double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787